Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04262022 - Completed Min PktCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 KAREN MITCHOFF, CHAIR, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, VICE CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT MONICA NINO, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 655-2075 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board meeting will be accessible in-person, via television, and via live-streaming to all members of the public. Board meetings are televised live on Comcast Cable 27, ATT/U-Verse Channel 99, and WAVE Channel 32, and can be seen live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov. Persons who wish to address the board during public comment or with respect to an item on the agenda may comment in person or may call in during the meeting by dialing 888-278-0254 followed by the access code 843298#. A caller should indicate they wish to speak on an agenda item, by pushing "#2" on their phone. Access via Zoom is also available using the following link: https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/87344719204 . Those participating via Zoom should indicate they wish to speak on an agenda item by using the “raise your hand” feature in the Zoom app. To provide contact information, please contact Clerk of the Board at clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us or call 925-655-2000. Meetings of the Board are closed-captioned in real time. Public comment generally will be limited to two minutes. Your patience is appreciated. A Spanish language interpreter is available to assist Spanish-speaking callers. A lunch break or closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible online at www.contracosta.ca.gov. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES April 26, 2022            9:00 A.M. Convene, call to order and opening ceremonies. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Agency Negotiators: Monica Nino. Employee Organizations and Unrepresented Employees: Public Employees Union, Local 1; AFSCME Locals 512 and 2700; California Nurses Assn.; SEIU Locals 1021 and 2015; District Attorney Investigators’ Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters I.A.F.F., Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; Prof. & Tech. Engineers IFPTE, Local 21; Teamsters Local 856; and all unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) Karl Arana v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ14048044 Karl Arana v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ140480441. James Boswell v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ119345592. Lisa Vickery v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ109957733. Christopher Williams v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ126591864. Contra Costa County v. Anthony M. Allegro, Jr., Trustee, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C21-00876 5. Contra Costa County v. DS Properties 17, LP, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C21-003726. Gustave Kramer v. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSN18-2076 7. C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 910 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Agency Negotiator: Beth Ward, Director of Animal Services, and Jessica Dillingham, Principal Real Property Agent Negotiating parties: County of Contra Costa and Fix Our Ferals (dba Animal Fix Clinic) Under negotiation: price and terms D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: County Administrator E. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Agency Negotiators: Karen Mitchoff, Federal Glover Unrepresented employee: County Administrator Inspirational Thought- "Find peace, mindfulness and conscious purpose by being grateful for what you have in your life." ~Clarke A. Katz Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:Monica Nino, County Administrator Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.84 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION proclaiming April 2022 as Alcohol Awareness Month. (Patricia Rogers, Alcohol and Other Drugs Program Manager)   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 RECEIVE briefing on preparations for the June Gubernatorial Primary Election as well as other current election activities. (Deborah Cooper, Clerk-Recorder)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 2 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Thomas Sueoka, Associate Appraiser, in the Assessor’s Office; FIND that the appointment of this retiree is necessary to fill a critically needed position in the Assessor’s Office; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of Mr. Sueoka as a temporary employee for the period April 27, 2022 through June 30, 2022, as recommended by the County Assessor. (Param Bhatia, Assessor's Office)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 3 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Dave Duet in the Health Services Department; FIND that    D. 3 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Dave Duet in the Health Services Department; FIND that the appointment of Mr. Duet is necessary to fill a critically needed position; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Mr. Duet as a temporary employee effective May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023. (Anna Roth, Health Services Director)       Speakers: Laura Powell.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 4 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Dr. Chris Farnitano in the Health Services Department; FIND that the appointment of Dr. Farnitano is necessary to fill a critically needed position; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Dr. Chris Farnitano as a temporary employee effective June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023. (Anna Roth, Health Services Director)       Speakers: Name not given; Laura Powell.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 5 ACCEPT update on COVID-19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. (Anna Roth, Health Services Director)      Speakers: Caller 6770; Gigi Crowder; Alfonzo Edwards, Antioch; Laura Powell; Veronica Benjamin; Phil Arnold; Barbara Howard; Jaylen Terry; Wanda Johnson; No Name Given.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 6 HEARING to consider approving the 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment Project and adoption of Resolution No. 2022/116, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from public/semi-public (PS) to multiple-family residential-high density (MH), and taking related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. (County File #GP20-0003) (Ashur Abbasi - Applicant and Owner) (Daniel Barrios, Department of Conservation and Development) (100% applicant fees)       Speakers: Mr. Abassi (Applicant); Troy Styles. Written commentary received from (attached): Troy & Sandra Styles    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 7 HEARING to consider approving the Byron Airport Development Program, including adoption of Resolution No. 2022/128 approving a County-initiated General Plan amendment and development plan modification, and adoption of Ordinance No. 22-13 to rezone and expand the range of uses allowed on the airport property; and to consider certifying the project environmental impact report and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the County Planning Commission. (County File Nos. GP12-0003, DP14-3008, and RZ21-3263) (Daniel Barrios, Department of Conservation and Development) (100% applicant fees)       Speakers: Jay and Carol Wyant, owners Armstrong Road Property; Troy. CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m May 17, 2022.   D. 8 HEARING to consider approving the Bayview Estates Residential Project, a 144-lot single-family residential    D. 8 HEARING to consider approving the Bayview Estates Residential Project, a 144-lot single-family residential development in the Martinez/Vine Hill area, including adoption of Resolution No. 2022/139 approving a General Plan amendment and Ordinance No. 2022-18 to rezone the project site, a vesting tentative map, preliminary and final development plan, and community benefits agreement; consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of the vesting tentative map for the Project; and consider certifying the project Environmental Impact Report and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the County Planning Commission. (County File Nos. CDGP04-00013, CDRZ04-03148, CDSD04-08809, CDDP04-03080) (Discovery Builders, Applicant & Owner) (Burt Kallander & Alma Johnson, Appellants) (Gary Kupp, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Doug Chen (Applicants), Burt Kallendar (Appellant), Alma Johnson (Appellant), Edward Reva, No name given; Alexandra; Rafael Martinez. Written commentary (attached) received from: Pamel Mitchell; Collette Jimenez; Nehrzad Hazratizdadeh; Jennifer Brennan. ADOPTED the recommendations with the following alterations and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval: BOS requested correction to Growth Management Finding #4 BOS requested correction to Tentative Map Finding #2 Modification to Conditions of Approval #s 23 & 79 Addition of a Condition to require deed disclosure notifying owners of potential odorous and/or noisy nearby industrial land uses.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 9 CONSIDER accepting the Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Final Report dated April 2022, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. (Jeff Valeros, Public Works Department)       Speakers: Caller 6770.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.10 ACCEPT update on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water policy issues and the activities of the Delta Counties Coalition and PROVIDE direction to staff, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Ryan Hernandez, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: No Name Given; Caller 6770; Edgar.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.11 CONSIDER authorizing the Board of Supervisors, in all its capacities, and its subcommittees, and its advisory bodies to continue teleconference meetings under Government Code section 54953(e), make related findings, and take related actions. (Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel)       Speaker: Name not given.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover 12:00 P.M. Closed Session   D. 12 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.      There were no consent items removed from consent for discussion.   D. 13 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Caller 6770 opines that any observant person knows that our nation, our state, our county and our communities are approaching historic crossroads, having been under a sustained attack of asymmetric warfare for years if not longer. That even so we move forward addressing the tasks and needs of the day. He offered for contemplation a quote from Benjamin Franklin: " I believe in one god the creator of the universe, that he governs he ought to be worshipped, the one, soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this one." Helen Cherne, requested clarification of whom Ms. Shiu is for the public, noted her dissatisfaction with the quality of the tap water in her area, stated she considers Supervisor Andersen to be a republican-in-name-only for her votes in alignment with democratic colleagues to what caller believes to be a detriment to the county; Veronica Benjamin requested information on when the coroner's inquest results will be released in the death of a Contra Costa Resident on March 10, 2021; Edgar of Antioch, informed the Board that he has consistently been attending Antioch City Council meetings, that he found the experience very hostile with a great deal of misinformation being spread, creating chaos in the city; Phil Arnold spoke on the value of oversight and encourages examination of the mental health of those in uniform; Mihaela Gough, Centro De La Raza, an attorney working in the area of eviction defense, highlighted the need for greater resources in the area, and the need for stable housing in Contra Costa; Gigi Crowder, NAMI, spoke on the harm done to individuals that needs to be addressed, by the increasing level of vitriol, intimidation and threats of harm to employees and residents by those holding a differing opinion.   D. 14 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 4:35 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Syar Industries, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 for asphalt concrete for road maintenance work for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Crafco, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 for crack seal material for road maintenance work for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025 Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Granite Construction Co. in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for asphalt concrete for road maintenance work for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 4 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Antioch Building Materials Co. in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for asphalt concrete for road maintenance work for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with County Asphalt, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for asphalt concrete for road maintenance work for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 6 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/135 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Napa Avenue, Pinole Avenue, Suisun Avenue, Vaqueros Avenue, Third Street and Fourth Street, between Parker Avenue and Vallejo Avenue, on April 27, 2022 through October 1, 2022 from 7:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., for the purpose of installing water main, service transfers, hydrants and connections for the East Bay Municipal Utility District Infrastructure Renewal Project, Rodeo area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 7 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Michael McCarthy for a south-facing hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective April 25, 2022, in the monthly amount of $359, Pacheco area. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 8 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an amendment to the    C. 8 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the County and the KPA Group dated March 12, 2019, to increase the payment limit by $10,200, to a new payment limit of $1,064,409 for additional geotechnical services relating to the Buchanan Field terminal project. (100% Airport Enterprise Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 Acting as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Marsh Creek Recreational Trail License Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District, effective April 26, 2022, to reflect changes in the trail alignment and permitted uses, and allow installation of interpretive signs, Brentwood area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 10 Acting as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Advanced Hydro Engineering, Inc., to amend the insurance requirements and to extend the term from June 3, 2022 through June 3, 2023 for on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling, with no change to the payment limit of $100,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with David L. Gates & Associates, Inc., to extend the term from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022 for continued on-call landscape architect services, with no change to the payment limit of $250,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 12 Acting as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., to amend the insurance requirements and to extend the term from May 14, 2022 through May 14, 2023 for on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling, with no change to the payment limit of $200,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to extend the term from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022 and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000 for continued on-call landscape architect services, Countywide. (100% Special Revenue Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with A.S. Dutchover (dba Dutchover Associates), to extend the term from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022 and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new limit of $350,000 for continued on-call landscape architect services, Countywide. (100% Special Revenue Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 Acting as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Jennifer Krebs (dba Jennifer Krebs Environmental Planning), to extend the term from May 7, 2022 through May 7, 2023 for on-call program support and Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Associations Administration, with no change to the payment limit of $300,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Bruce Moorad and Judith Moorad, for a north-facing shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective April 27, 2022, in the monthly amount of $169, Pacheco area (100% Airport Enterprise Fund).       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 17 DENY claims filed by Manny Amador, Mary Barker, Brenda Gardner, Rickey Richard McNeal, Mary Nunn, Terri Sommer, Andrea L. Thayer and Karen Triest.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 18 ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2022.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 19 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/144 proclaiming April 24-30, 2022 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in promotion of victims' rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf, as recommended by the District Attorney.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/140 recognizing Karen Reed as the 2022 Moraga Citizen of the Year, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/145 proclaiming April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Month, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/150 recognizing April 2022 as Alcohol Awareness Month as recommended by    C. 22 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/150 recognizing April 2022 as Alcohol Awareness Month as recommended by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Administration and by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 23 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-16, to increase fines and administrative penalty amounts for violations of the County Ordinance Code, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Nominal fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 24 APPOINT Marilyn Cachola Lucey to the District II Seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls for a term ending February 28, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 APPOINT Swamini Bajpai to the City of San Ramon Local Committee seat on the Advisory Council on Aging for a term ending September 30, 2023 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 ACCEPT the resignation of Deb Spinola, DECLARE a vacancy in the Trustee 1 Seat on the Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery District for a term ending December 31, 2022, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPOINT Cynthia Chavez to the District 3 Seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPOINT Gareth Ashley to the District IV seat on the Aviation Advisory Committee for a term ending February 28, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPOINT Darsh Bhutra to the Appointee 5 Seat on the County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 30 APPOINT Tavane Payne to the District IV Seat 2 on the Mental Health Commission for a term ending June 30, 2024 as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 REAPPOINT Dennis Reigle to the Public Representative 1 seat, and APPOINT Larry Fernandes to the Public Representative 2 seat and Kenneth Miller to the Board of Supervisors Alternate Representative seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee, all to four-year terms beginning May 1, 2022 and ending April 30, 2026, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 APPOINT Maimoona Ahmed to the District IV Alternate seat on the Assessment Appeals Board for a term ending September 1, 2024, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 ACCEPT the resignation of Joaquin Lopez, DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 5 Seat on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council for a term ending December 31, 2024, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 ACCEPT the resignation of Vincent Burgos effective May 11, 2022, DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 6 Seat on the County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2023, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 ACCEPT the resignation of Genevieve Herron, DECLARE a vacancy in the Youth Representative on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council for a term ending December 31, 2024, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 36 Probation Programs (0308) / Fleet Services (0064): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5044 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $270,000 from Probation Programs to General Services - Fleet Operations for the purchase of sprinter vans that will serve as mobile offices to allow Probation Department to provide comprehensive Pretrial services to the community.(100% State; No County Match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 Probation Department (0308): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No.5042 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $754,530 from the State Superior Court's Pretrial Release Program and appropriating to Probation Programs (0308) for the one time expenditures for the expansion of pretrial services. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations Intergovernmental Relations   C. 38 ADOPT an "Oppose Unless Amended" position on Assembly Bill 2295 (Bloom) a bill that would require that a qualified housing development on land owned by a local educational agency, charter school, or office of education, be an authorized use if the housing development complies with certain conditions, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 39 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25709 to reallocate the salary of the Hazardous Materials Technician (represented) classification in the Health Services Department. (100% Certified Unified Program Agency Permit Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25853 to reallocate the salary of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures-Exempt classification on the salary schedule in the Agriculture, Weights and Measure Department. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25932 to cancel one Clerical Supervisor (represented) position and add one Account Clerk Supervisor (represented) position in the Finance Division of the Health Services Department. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPOINT Greg Baer to the position of Director of Airports - Exempt at Step 2 of the salary range, effective May 2, 2022, including all benefits provided in the current Management Resolution applicable to the position of Director of Airports – Exempt, in addition to vacation accruals starting at the rate of five (5) weeks per year. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Sutter Bay Hospitals, to pay the County an amount up to $100,000 for the County’s Coordinated Outreach, Referrals and Engagement program to provide homeless outreach services for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Children and Family Services Bureau to accept a noncompetitive allocation in the amount of $1,079,500 from the California Department of Social Services for the Bringing Families Home Program over two years from the date of grant award through June 30, 2024. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a grant amendment with the California Secretary of State to extend the term from June 30, 2022 through December 31, 2024 with no change to the reimbursement limit of $6,038,436 for the purchase of replacement voting systems and technology. (25% County match, County General Fund and local jurisdiction election fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $195,000 from the City of Antioch for replacement of the Antioch Library's heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% City of Antioch Community Development Block Grant, no County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to accept funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in the amount of $25,000 for the Women’s Recovery Response Grant to provide support services to women and girls through enhanced strategic communications efforts for the period April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a grant agreement with the Richmond Community Foundation, to pay the County an amount up to $75,000, for the Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement program to provide homeless outreach services to homeless individuals with behavioral health needs in Richmond for the period April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Department of Health Care Services to update terms and conditions, in compliance with federal regulations as determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, for continuation mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible residents with no change in the term through June 30, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the State Department of Health Care Access and Information, to pay the County an amount up to $375,000 for the continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period June 30, 2022 through August 29, 2025. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Bay    C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to pay the County an amount up to $238,697 for the expansion of the Asthma Mitigation Project in Contra Costa County for the period April 1, 2022 through April 30, 2024. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with FirstWatch Solutions, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $225,000 to provide data link services for the Emergency Medical Services web-based data surveillance systems for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. (100% County Service Area Measure H)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Otis Elevator Company in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide on-call elevator maintenance and repair services at various County buildings for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with TK Elevator Corporation in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 to provide on-call elevator maintenance and repair services at various County buildings for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2025, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with East Bay Audiologists, a Professional Corporation, to increase the payment limit by $290,000 to a new payment limit of $1,470,000 for additional audiology evaluation services for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Human Resources Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with SmartERP Solutions, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000 and to extend the term from April 30, 2022 through June 30, 2024 for the implementation, license and support of SmartERP software for enhanced automation of Human Resources activities. (100% Benefits Administration Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Chief    C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with General Datatech, L.P., not to exceed $1,115,000 for the renewal of CrowdStrike Falcon Complete, a managed endpoint protection service, for the period March 22, 2022 through March 21, 2023. (100% User Departments)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with R.E.A.C.H. Project, to increase the payment limit by $40,000 to a new payment limit of $240,000 to provide additional mental health services and substance abuse prevention and treatment services to Medi-Cal eligible County residents for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% CalWORKS Alcohol and Other Drugs Services)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Danville Long-Term Care, Inc. (dba Danville Post-Acute Rehab), in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to provide skilled nursing facility services for Contra Costa Health Plan members and County recipients for the period May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa ARC, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $266,152 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. (100% Substance Abuse Mental Health Works)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Gigi Walker (dba Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair), to extend the term from May 31, 2022 through May 31, 2023 to provide on-call collision and auto body repair services to County vehicles, with no change to the payment limit of $600,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022 through April 11, 2024, Countywide. (100% User Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Firstlocum, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to provide temporary physician staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 RATIFY the execution of a consulting services agreement, dated April 14, 2021, with Lance, Soll, &   C. 64 RATIFY the execution of a consulting services agreement, dated April 14, 2021, with Lance, Soll, & Lunghard LLP by the County Auditor-Controller, or designee, for technical assistance with the automation of the Contra Costa County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report in an amount not to exceed $81,475. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Dokken Engineering in an amount not to exceed $350,000 for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022 through April 11, 2024, Countywide. (100% User Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mark Watts Advocacy, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide legislative advocacy and monitoring services for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Monument Row, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022 through April 11, 2024, Countywide. (100% User Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Child Support Services Director, a purchase order with R-Computer, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $213,368 for the purchase of Dell UltraSharp 38” curved monitors and the necessary mounting hardware for the period April 15 through June 30, 2022. (66% Federal, 34% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Citiguard Inc., in an amount not to exceed $270,000 to provide security guard services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers and COVID-19 testing sites for the period May 1, 2022 through October 31, 2022. (100% American Rescue Plan Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with Insight Public Sector, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 and a Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment Agreement for Microsoft enterprise software applications for the period May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2025. (100% User Departments)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 71 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/146 calling and noticing election of Contra Costa County Employees'   C. 71 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/146 calling and noticing election of Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees Member No. 7 Alternate (safety), as recommended by the County Administrator. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian to close the Lafayette County Library at 3:00 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. on October 15, 2022 to host the annual Night at the Library fundraising event, as requested by the Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 REFER the recommendation of the Sustainability Commission that the Board consider establishing low-carbon concrete standards to the Sustainability Committee, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 ACCEPT the February 2022 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to submit the Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging 2022-2023 Area Plan Update for services under the Older Americans Act and other State funded programs to the California Department of Aging, and AUTHORIZE the Board of Supervisors Chair to sign the Letter of Transmittal.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Arthrex, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $900,000 to procure instruments, implants, and supplies for the orthopedic department for the period from April 1, 2022, through January 31, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/137 declaring the intention to form Zone 2608 within County Service Area P-6 in the unincorporated Martinez area and fixing a public hearing for May 24, 2022, to consider public input regarding the establishment of Zone 2608 and the adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-15 authorizing the levy of a special tax within Zone 2608 to fund police protection services, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Developer fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the University of the Pacific, to provide supervised field instruction to physical therapy and speech therapy to students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the City of Brentwood to extend the termination date from April 30, 2022 to May 31, 2022, to allow the County and California Department of Public Health contractors to continue using the Brentwood Technology and Education Center for COVID-19 testing and immunizations. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 APPROVE recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Committee for the allocation of 2022 Fish and Wildlife Propagation funding for ten projects totaling $50,325, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee. (100% restricted Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 RECEIVE the Small Business Enterprise, Outreach, and Local Bid Preference Programs Report, reflecting departmental program data for the period July 1 through December 31, 2021, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 82 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, to pay up to $135,432 to Agiliti Health, Inc. for the rental of medical devices and equipment provided to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period of October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (100% American Rescue Plan Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 83 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the University of New England, to provide supervised field instruction to nutrition program intern students in the County’s Public Health Division for the period April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 84 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director to execute an amendment to extend a tolling agreement with Discovery Builders, Inc., West Coast Home Builders, Inc., and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to toll the limitations period for potential litigation related to fire protection facilities fees through December 31, 2022. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 or to clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 655-2000. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, First Floor. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California. Subscribe to receive to the weekly Board Agenda by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000 or using the County's on line subscription feature at the County’s Internet Web Page, where agendas and supporting information may also be viewed: www.contracosta.ca.gov STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the first Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets quarterly on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m.. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE briefing by the Clerk-Recorder and staff regarding preparations for the June Gubernatorial Primary Election, as well as other current election activities. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. Informational report only. BACKGROUND: Please refer to attached presentation. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Debi Cooper 925-335-7897 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Briefing on June Primary Election and other election activities ATTACHMENTS Elections Briefing VOTING IN CONTRA COSTA June 7, 2022 Primary Election Debi Cooper, Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Tommy Gong, Deputy Clerk-Recorder Helen Nolan, Assistant Registrar April 26, 2022 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY June 7, 2022 Election Plans Election Safety and Security Outreach and Education 2 2022 Elections (Much the same as 2020 and 2021) All Voters will Receive a Vote by Mail Ballot! Secure Drop Boxes (37) •In 2020, we added over 20 more •Most are available 24/7 •Serviced daily by 2 Elections staff Early Voting locations (5+ our office) •Open 4 days (Fri., Sat., Mon., Election Day) •All Services: Registration-Voting-Language-Accessibility Polling Places (153) •Electronic check-in eliminates the need for most provisional ballots •All ballots will be transported back to our central office to be counted 3 2022 Elections 37 Drop Boxes 4 2022 Elections Things to Remember: •Return your ballot by US Mail or secure drop box (return postage is prepaid) •County Public Health and the Elections Division recommend voting by mail as the pandemic continues •Return your ballot early!so it can be included in our Election Night count •In-person services are available at our office (29 days before) at early voting sites (3 days before) and at polling places on Election Day •All precinct ballots will be transported to our main office in Martinez to be counted on Election Night 5 •Elections are designated as critical infrastructure of this country by the Department of Homeland Security •We coordinate with Federal/State agencies to assure the highest security •During election time, we have regular meetings and briefings with the FBI, Homeland Security, Secretary of State and State security agencies •Contra Costa Elections is an active member of, and participates in, several IT security groups at the national, state, and local levels •We work with Federal CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) •Security planning, safeguards, incident detection •4 Primary areas: Networks, Facilities, Processes, People •Recently consolidated Department IT and added a dedicated position to oversee cybersecurity and network security for the department 6 Elections Safety and Security •Voting Systems are not connected to the Internet •All voting systems and updates must be approved by the Secretary of State •All staff receive initial and ongoing training of how to secure networks and data •We have multiple firewalls and 24/7 intrusion monitoring •Networks are subjected to cyber -hygiene scanning and penetration testing to harden systems against intrusion •Recently received .gov top level domain for our websites 7 Securing our Networks •All facilities are locked and access is only as needed •Proximity cards limit and monitor who enters areas •Only top level management have access to high security systems and areas •Each voting location has a security assessment conducted as part of the selection process •Upgrading our video monitoring system •Law enforcement is on site Election Night at our main facility, warehouse and depot ballot transfer locations 8 Securing our Facilities •Our processes are highly regulated by Election Code and State law •Every vote-by-mail ballot must be signed by the voter. Every signature is checked by a staff member and compared to the voter’s known signature in our system •Only the first ballot we receive is counted (the system intercepts others) •At polling places, electronic poll books are connected in real time •We create and submit a security plan to the SOS each election •Strict chain of custody is maintained for ballots and equipment •All equipment goes through logic and accuracy testing before use •Post election audits ensure equipment performed as expected •All election processes and audits are available for the public to view 9 Securing our Processes •Our voting system is a paper-based, digital scan tally system •The voting system is NEVER connected to the internet or county network •The voting system is physically restricted, locked at all times, and only authorized personnel are allowed in the area •Strict chain of custody procedures and ballot inventory controls are maintained throughout the election process •The voting system is password-protected and all activity is logged •Election staff assure procedures are followed for programming, deployment, and use of voting equipment during elections •Voting equipment goes through logic and accuracy testing before each election •Post election audits ensure equipment performed as expected (1% hand count) •All election processes and audits are available for the public to view •If any part of a voting system or chain of custody has been compromised, or security or information has been breached, immediate notification to the SOS is required; investigation, verification and sanitation protocols must be followed 10 Securing our Voting Systems •All staff (permanent and temporary) must pass background checks before hire •All staff must wear ID badges at all times •Staff have access to only those areas and times appropriate for their assignment •Only top level management have access to the most secure areas •All staff receive training before each election on system security, in particular password security, phishing, and other email scams •All staff and poll workers are trained in appropriate response to various safety or security incidents 11 Securing our People 12 Outreach and Education •Our outreach activities are expanding, particularly to areas and demographics that are historically underrepresented •We continue to implement our strategic communication plan •Social media policy and program •YouTube videos explaining what we do •Providing our services in our communities •“So you want to run for office?” potential candidate workshops •Candidate Forums for June and November (coordinated with LWV) •Monthly community pop-up services in East and West County •Quarterly Elections Citizens Engagement (ECE) meetings with community partners and interested citizens •Ballot drop-off and voter registration drives in our schools, colleges, and communities •Continue to reach out and work with community organizations (like the LWV)13 Outreach and Education •Bay Area Votes –Coalition of 11 greater Bay Area Counties •Election Officials are continually combatting false/misleading info •Mis-information –false but not created or shared with harmful intent •Dis-information –deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate •Mal-information –based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm •All 3 can undermine confidence in elections •Joining forces and resources to combat incorrect information •Share media markets (TV, print, radio) •Goal -educate all Bay Area voters •Provide accurate, timely information about voting processes •Transparent views of the elections processes •Be the trusted source of election information •“Prebunking” vs. Debunking •Providing accurate information before negative information surfaces 14 Coalition of Bay Area Election Officials •Website: BayAreaVotes.org •Key Message “Your local election official is your trusted source of nonpartisan election information.” 15 Coalition of Bay Area Election Officials Passport Program –observe all critical election functions •Tour facility, warehouse, in-person voting location •Voter Registration •Public Logic and Accuracy tests •Election security •Vote by Mail processes •Signature verification •Extraction •Ballot Tabulation •In-person voting •Conditional Voter Registration •Provisional Voting •Final balancing and reconciliation •1% Manual Tally •Certifying the election! •Inaugural group is limited due to safety and social distancing 16 Certified Election Observer Program •May 3, 2022 Special Election (with Alameda County -150 voters) •June 7, 2022 Gubernatorial Primary Election (Statewide) •Redistricting -all spring and summer (25-50 Cities, Schools, and Special Districts) •November 8, 2022 Gubernatorial General Election (Statewide) 17 What’s Ahead? Stay in Touch Website: www.ccclerkrec.us Email: debi.cooper@cr.cccounty.us tommy.gong@cr.cccounty.us helen.nolan@vote.cccounty.us Check out our Social Media sites: Facebook: @ContraCostaElections Twitter: @cocoelections Youtube: Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder Elections Instagram: contra_costa_elections 18 Thank you! QUESTIONS? 19 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER waiving the 180-day "sit-out period" for Thomas Sueoka, Associate Appraiser, in the Assessor's Office. 2. FIND that the appointment of Mr. Sueoka is necessary to fill a critically needed position; and 3. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of County retiree, Thomas Sueoka, as a temporary County employee for the period of April 27, 2022 through June 30, 2022, as recommended by the County Assessor. FISCAL IMPACT: Salary costs are included within the Department's budget. The total cost for the requested period is approximately $26,000. BACKGROUND: The Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2013 requires that active members who retire on or after January 1, 2013 must wait 180 days after APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gus Kramer, (925) 313-7500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sara Holman, Danielle Gomez, Robin Cantu D. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Gus Kramer, Assessor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Hire of a County Retiree and Waiver of the 180-Day "Sit-Out Period" for the Assessor's Office BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) retirement before returning to work as a temporary employee. The Act also allows the Board, based on a finding that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position, to waive the 180 day "sit-out" period. Mr. Sueoka retired from County service on March 31, 2022. He was hired in the Assessor's Office 26 years ago and when he retired, he had over 15 years of experience as an Associate Appraiser, with nearly all of his experience in the Residential Division. As an Associate Appraiser, Mr. Sueoka was responsible for the more complex appraisals, resolving assessment appeals and challenging valuation issues, making change in ownership determinations, analyzing ownership issues, and investigating and researching property tax matters for the Alamo and Diablo areas. The Division’s current workload is greater than prior roll years due to an increase in sales and new construction throughout the County. In addition to the increase of work, the Division was required to allocate staff to assist with increased workloads in other Divisions and suffered a sudden and unexpected loss of staff due to a resignation and two retirements. Mr. Sueoka is experienced and qualified to perform the necessary tasks to ensure the Department meets the State's requirement to deliver the assessment roll by July 1, 2022. Due to staff shortages and an increased workload, the Department would like to hire Mr. Sueoka as a temporary employee from April 27, 2022 through June 30, 2022 to assist in the close of the assessment roll. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to receive Board approval will create additional strain on existing staff in the Residential Division and could increase the risk that the Department will be unable to certify the assessment roll by the State’s deadline of July 1, 2022. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER waiving the 180-day 'sit-out period' for Mr. Dave Duet, Facilities Manager, in the Health Services Department; 2. FIND that the appointment of Mr. Duet is necessary to fill a critically needed position; and 3. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Mr. Dave Duet as a temporary employee effective May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023 as recommended by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will have an annual cost of $59,558 which is already included in the Department's operating budget. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I) BACKGROUND: Dave Duet retired from County service on March 30, 2022. Mr. Duet has been with Health Services' Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) for almost 22 years, with the majority of his time serving as the CCRMC Facilities Manager. It is essential that he return as a retiree to provide continuity of services until his replacement is hired. The Department is in preparation of the recruitment process in order to establish an employment list and permanantly fill the position. The Department has determined that it is necessary for Mr. Duet to return as the Facilities Manager. In or about August 2022, CCRMC is scheduled for two major inspections from the Joint Commission and the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) facility relicensing inspection. Both inspections are heavily focused on the environment of care which includes safety, security, and plant operations. As a retiree, Mr. Duet will continue to serve as CCMRC's Facilities Manager and play a central role in both inspections. Mr. Duet will serve as the Safety Officer for the hospital and health centers, maintain the Emergency Operations Plan, and oversee the emergency management disaster drills. In addition, he will continue to oversee the environmental services (EVS) units at CCRMC and Health Centers; monitor the Public Works and DoIT work orders and projects; review and submit capital projects; and serve as liaison with Public Works and the various trades and contractors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to receive Board approval may adversely impact CCRMCs regulatory and facility licensing inspections from CDPH and the Joint Commission. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jo-Anne Linares, 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Runt, Erika Jenssen, Jo-Anne Linares D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Hire of County Retiree-Waiver of 180-Day Sit-out Period CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Laura Powell. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER waiving the 180-day 'sit-out period' for Dr. Chris Farnitano in the Health Services Department; 2. FIND that the appointment of Dr. Farnitano is necessary to fill a critically needed position; and 3. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Dr. Chris Farnitano as a temporary employee effective June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023, as recommended by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of $95,990 and is fully budgeted within the Department's Hospital Enterprise Fund I operating budget's temporary salaries allocation. BACKGROUND: Dr. Chris Farnitano retired from County service on March 1, 2022. Dr. Farnitano was hired as an Exempt Medical Staff Resident - Physician in June of 1991, and served as a medical provider until his promotion to Medical Director in September of 2010. As a retiree, Dr. Farnitano would be returning as an Ambulatory Care Provider-Exempt assigned to the Pittsburg Health Center providing primary care services in the family practice and HIV clinics. The department requests to hire Dr. Farnitano as a retiree to staff the family practice and HIV clinics in the County's Pittsburg Health Center. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to receive Board approval may result in not meeting staffing demands of the Pittsburg Health Center's family practice and HIV clinics, which directly impacts patient care services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jo-Anne Linares, 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Gabriella Sullivan, Erika Jenssen D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Hire of County Retiree-Waiver of 180-Day Sit-out Period CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Name not given; Laura Powell. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT update on COVID 19 and PROVIDE direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative Reports with no specific fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has established a website dedicated to COVID-19, including daily updates. The site is located at: https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/ APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monica Nino I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on COVID -19 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Caller 6770; Gigi Crowder; Alfonzo Edwards, Antioch; Laura Powell; Veronica Benjamin; Phil Arnold; Barbara Howard; Jaylen Terry; Wanda Johnson; No Name Given. ATTACHMENTS COVID Update PowerPoint APRIL 26, 2022 COVID-19 UPDATE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Data as of April 20, 2022 COVID -19 DEATHS IN CONTRA COSTA Total Deaths 1,297 Total deaths from COVID-19 in Contra Costa. COVID-associated deaths have a positive PCR test and contain COVID-19 on the death certificate as either a cause of death or other significant condition contributing to death. Data as of April 20, 2022 CONTRA COSTA HAS THE 2ND LOWEST DEATH RATE OF COUNTIES IN THE US WITH POPULATION GREATER THAN ONE MILLION Note: California data is using death data reported as County of Residency (available from CDPH). Non-California data is using death reported by occurrence (available from CDC) Source: California Open Data: COVID-19 Time-Series Metrics by County and State -Datasets -California Health and Human Services Open Data Portal Date accessed 04/18/22. Non-California data: National Center for Health Statistics. Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts in the United States by County. Date accessed 04/18/22.Available from https://data.cdc.gov/d/kn79-hsxy and Population estimates from:https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view?list_select_state=all_states&list_select_county=all_counties&data-type=CommunityLevels COVID -19 Deaths per 100,000, for US Counties with Greater than 1 million Residents, 2020-22 Data as of April 20, 2022 COMPARING DEATH RATE TO OVERALL US Source: California Open Data:COVID-19 Time-Series Metrics by County and State -Datasets -California Health and Human Services Open Data Portal Date accessed 04/18/22Data as of April 20, 2022 Contra Costa had 112 COVID deaths per 100K residents. Contra Costa has 1297 deaths now. US overall had 300 deaths per 100K residents. If the US death rate were applied to Contra Costa, there would be 3467 deaths. COVID -19 DEATH RATES AMONG LARGE CALIFORNIA COUNTIES Source: California Open Data:COVID-19 Time-Series Metrics by County and State -Datasets -California Health and Human Services Open Data Portal Date accessed 04/18/22Data as of April 20, 2022 Less “Healthy” Census Tracts More “Healthy” Census Tracts  262 182 100 50 56 40 26 12 1 2 3 4 65+ Death Rate per 100,00 pop All Age Death Rate per 100,000 pop COMMUNITY COVID DEATH RATES SINCE JULY 1, 2021 BY HEALTHY PLACES INDEX QUARTILE Data as of April 20, 2022 Zero preventable COVID Deaths Prevent infection Increase timely vaccination and testing Reduce transmission Increase survival when infected Increase timely vaccination and testing Increase timely use of therapeutics Increase access to health care Advance equity by addressing racism, poverty and biases Stratify data and risk factors by demographics Data-driven resource allocation Outreach, engagement and information Increase credibility and trust Easy and ongoing access to testing and vaccination AIM PRIMARY FOCUS AREAS SECONDARY FOCUS AREAS EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS Reduce misinformation through trusted messengers Enact sick leave policies Maintain hospital surge capacity Increase access to health coverage Increase stable and affordable housing Increase infection control capability in congregate care facilities Contra Costa Path to Zero Review of every death Data as of April 20, 2022 Maintain PPE supply Tracking of variants Educate providers on interventions Normalizing mask wearing Make therapeutics easily available Partnerships with community-based organizations Ensure at-home test in every household Presence in hardest-hit communities Wastewater surveillance Competent, trained and stable staff at congregate care facilities RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment project (County File #GP20-0003), RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. DETERMINE that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) and 15303(b). 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/116, amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation of the subject property from Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH). 4. APPROVE findings in support of the project. 5. APPROVE the conditions of approval for the project. 6. APPROVE the 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment project. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the required application deposits and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover all additional costs associated with the application process. (100% applicant fees) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Barrios (925) 655-2901 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Will Nelson D. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment, County File #GP20-0003 BACKGROUND: Project Description This hearing is to consider a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH) for a 5,750 square-foot (0.13-acre) vacant parcel. General Information A. Site/Area Description : The subject property is located at 343 Rodeo Avenue in Rodeo, Assessor's Parcel Number 357-081-015. The subject site, along with the adjacent parcel 341 Rodeo Avenue (APN 357-081-036), currently have a PS General Plan land use designation. The next four parcels to the north and the four parcels to the south are designated Office (OF), there are five parcels south of those that are designated MH. The land to the north and east is designated Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed-Use (M-2), and the large majority of remaining land to the west is designated Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH). B. General Plan: The subject property’s General Plan land use designation is PS. The PS designation includes properties owned by public governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc., and privately-owned transportation and utility corridors (e.g., railroads, pipelines). C. Zoning: The subject property is located in the Rodeo Planned Unit District (P-1). Land uses in the Rodeo P-1 are dictated by the property’s General Plan land use designation. County Planning Commission Hearing On February 9, 2022, the County Planning Commission (CPC) conducted a hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment. The CPC voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend adoption of the GPA to the Board of Supervisors, with a modification that the new land use designation be Multiple-Family Residential-Medium Density (MM) instead of the applicant's requested MH. This would reduce the maximum unit yield of the property from four units down to three. The CPC was concerned with neighborhood compatibility, specifically that future development of a four-unit building would be too tall and inconsistent with the surrounding community, as the height limit for properties designated MH is 45 feet in the Rodeo P-1 zoning district. The topic of height limits and other applicable Rodeo P-1 development standards is discussed further under the "Staff Analysis" section below. Environmental Review The proposed GPA is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the "common sense" exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The potential development allowed by the GPA would not result in significant environmental impacts because of its location within a fully developed existing neighborhood, low unit yield, and infill characteristics. For example, air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic impacts would be typical of a small multi-family project in an urbanized area, i.e., negligible. Noise impacts would also be negligible, as the surrounding area is a built-out residential and commercial environment and potential development would be consistent with that kind of development. Being a developed neighborhood, there also is no sensitive habitat that could be disturbed by development. Additionally, the property receives public utilities and is not the type of development associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b), multi-family buildings that include up to six dwelling units and are located in urbanized areas are categorically exempt from environmental review. Staff Analysis The proposed project involves a GPA to change the General Plan land use designation from PS to MH for a 5,750 square-foot (0.13-acre) vacant parcel. The subject property was previously owned by the County and was purchased at auction by the current owners. The new property owner is interested in developing the site with a small multi-family project. It is noted that adjacent parcels are developed as single-family residences, a four-plex, offices, and commercial shops. The applicant has stated their intention to develop the property to its maximum potential while still maintaining compatibility with the development pattern in the community. As such, the applicant is requesting the MH land use designation, which has a density range of 22.0-29.9 units per net acre. This density translates to a range of three to four units on the subject property. The MH land use designation is consistent with the overall residential character of the community and numerous other examples of MH designations with multi-family development are present nearby. Rodeo P-1 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for multi-family development, 6,000 square feet for a duplex, and 2,800 square feet for a single-family residence. Although it does not meet the minimum lot size for the P-1, the size of the property would not preclude development of up to four units. This is evidenced by multiple properties within the vicinity having similarly sized lots with multi-family buildings on them, including a four-plex directly adjacent to the south. The height limit for properties designated MH in the Rodeo P-1 is 45 feet, which allows significant vertical room to accommodate potential units, off-street parking, and outdoor space for the tenants. As indicated above, the CPC's recommendation for modifying the GPA from MH to MM was in response to the potential for future development of four units to be built up to the 45-foot height limit of the Rodeo P-1. Since the MM designation has the same height limit of 45 feet, the reduction of units does not necessarily achieve the intended height reductions; it may simply reduce the chances of a taller building being constructed. A multi-family project adhering to the P-1 development standards can be developed on the subject property if designed properly. Staff notes that the adjacent four-unit building to the south is less than 30 feet tall. Staff also notes that the subject property is at a lower base elevation than the adjacent single-family neighborhood to the west, so while the height limit for a property designated MH or MM is 10 feet taller than the adjacent single-family neighborhood, the difference is largely offset by topography. Considering Contra Costa County's 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 7,610 units, 58.8 percent of which must be below market rate, changing the land use designation to MH is, from staff's perspective, preferable to MM. While none of the units resulting from the GPA are required by ordinance to be affordable, they will be more affordable by design. The reduction in density from MH to MM would not necessarily achieve the intended height reduction and would only serve to eliminate a housing opportunity when the County needs a substantial influx of housing. Conclusion Changing the land use designation to MH is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the overall development pattern of the Rodeo community. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the requested GPA pursuant to the recommendations listed above in this staff report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The subject property will retain its PS land use designation if the proposed GPA is not adopted. The PS designation is intended for land owned by public agencies and other entities serving the public, but the property is now under private ownership. Retaining the PS designation would severely limit opportunities for future development and preclude the project applicant from realizing their ultimate goal of constructing housing. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Mr. Abassi (Applicant); Troy Styles. Written commentary received from (attached): Troy & Sandra Styles AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/116 Attachment A - GP20-0003_Findings & Conditions of Approval Attachment B - GP20-0003 General Plan Amendment Map Attachment C - Existing Zoning Map Attachment D - Assessor's Parcel Map Attachment E - Aerial Photo Attachment F - GP20-0003 Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/116 Correspondence Received THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/116 IN THE MATTER OF approving a General Plan Amendment (County File #GP20-0003) for the 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment project. WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 26, 2022, to consider the 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment project, proposed for the Rodeo area. The project includes adoption a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) finding that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 10561(b)(3) and 15303(b), and adoption of a General Plan Amendment (County File #GP20-0003). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment changes the subject property's General Plan Land Use Element Map designation from Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH). WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of supervisors resolves as follows: A. The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment (GPA) findings: The subject site is located inside the County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL), and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designation, Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH), is urban. Furthermore, the project does not involve expansion of the ULL or extension of urban services beyond the ULL boundary, thereby being consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3-10, which discourages such extensions. 1. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the County may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, etc. The existing land use designation for the subject site, Public and Semi-Public (PS), is a non-urban designation. As the proposed MH land use designation is an urban designation, there will be a fractional increase in the percentage of land devoted to urban uses. The increase will not result in exceedance of the 35 percent limit. 2. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program, and related CCTA resolutions. Adoption of the proposed GPA would increase the subject site’s maximum development potential from a variety of public and semi-public land uses, excluding residential development, to up to four multiple-family residential units. The increase is below the threshold for triggering the Growth Management Program GPA Review Process or studying the proposed GPA’s potential impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. 3. The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated area of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map. The proposed GPA involves an increase in density at the subject site that is consistent with the goals and policies for the Rodeo area, as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. 4. General Plan to become internally inconsistent. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if such amendment is deemed to be “in the public interest.” The General Plan contains policies related to providing an adequate housing supply and encouraging infill development on under-utilized sites within urbanized areas where necessary utilities already are installed. It is in the public interest to adopt the proposed GPA because the project is consistent with these policies and will allow for an increase in housing supply with insignificant environmental impacts. Not only would adoption of the GPA allow for additional housing units, but development of under-utilized sites also serves to prevent blight, as the vacant lot will no longer be available for illegal dumping or other potential neglect. 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is part of the first consolidated amendment of the Land Use Element for 2022. 6. B. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment, County File #GP20-0003, to change the land use designation of the subject property from Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH) as part of the first consolidated General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2022, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Daniel Barrios (925) 655-2901 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Will Nelson FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ASHUR ABBASI (APPLICANT & OWNER); COUNTY FILE #GP20-0003 FINDINGS A. General Plan Amendment 1. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the County Urban Limit Line. Project Finding: The subject site is located inside the County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL), and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designation, Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH), is urban. Furthermore, the project does not involve expansion of the ULL or extension of urban services beyond the ULL boundary. 2. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not cause a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the County may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, etc. The existing land use designation for the subject site, Public and Semi-Public (PS), is a non-urban designation. As the proposed MH land use designation is an urban designation, there will be a fractional increase in the percentage of land devoted to urban uses. The increase will not result in exceedance of the 35 percent limit. 3. Required Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program. Project Finding: The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program, and related CCTA resolutions. Adoption of the proposed GPA would increase the subject site’s maximum development potential from a variety of public and semi-public land uses, excluding residential development, to a range of three-to-four multiple-family residential units. The increase is below the threshold for triggering the Growth Management Program GPA Review Process or studying the proposed GPA’s potential impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. 4. Required Finding: Following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan will remain internally consistent, as required under Government Code Section 65300.5. CPC – February 9, 2022 County File #GP20-0003 Findings & COAs Page 2 of 4 Project Finding: The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated areas. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map. The proposed GPA involves an increase in density at the subject site that is consistent with the goals and policies for the Rodeo Area, as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. 5. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if such amendment is deemed to be “in the public interest.” The General Plan contains policies related to providing an adequate supply of housing and encouraging infill development on under-utilized sites within urbanized areas where necessary utilities already are installed. It is in the public interest to adopt the proposed GPA because the project is consistent with these policies and will allow for an increase to the supply of housing units. Not only would this allow for additional housing units, development of under-utilized sites also serves to prevent blight, as the vacant lot will no longer be available for illegal dumping or potentially neglected by a property owner. 6. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not exceed the limit on such amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is the first consolidated amendment of the Land Use Element for 2022. B. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: Implementation Measure 4-c of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan requires a traffic impact analysis of any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more additional AM or PM peak-hour trips. The proposed land use designation would allow for three-to-four new multi-family residential units on the subject property, and the property is accessed directly from Rodeo Avenue. The new density of up to four units would not generate an increase in AM or PM peak-hour trips in excess of the 100-trip threshold. Thus, there would be no impact to area streets or intersections and no traffic report is required. 2. Water: The project site currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Any future development shall be submitted to and reviewed CPC – February 9, 2022 County File #GP20-0003 Findings & COAs Page 3 of 4 by EBMUD, and, by meeting their development standards, the site is expected to be accommodated by existing water facilities and supplies without expansion of the existing system. Accordingly, the impact of providing water service to the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Sewage: The project site is served by the Rodeo Sanitation District (RSD). Any future development shall be submitted to and reviewed by RSD. By meeting their development standards, the proposed project is expected to be accommodated by existing RSD facilities without expansion of the wastewater treatment system. Thus, no significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region would be expected. 4. Fire Protection: Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project vicinity are provided by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District (RHFPD). The closest fire station to the subject property is Station #75 located approximately 0.2 miles away at 326 3rd Street, in Rodeo. Any future development shall be submitted to and reviewed by RHFPD. As a result of compliance with RHFPD development standards, there would be no significant increase in demand for fire services expected as a result of the project. 5. Public Protection: Law enforcement services in the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, through the Bay Station, located approximately 8.1 miles driving distance to the southwest of the project site. Public protection standards under Policy 4-6 of the Growth Management Program (GMP) of the County General Plan require a Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the county. The proposed project would not induce a significant population increase within the county that would equal or exceed 1,000 persons. The new MH land use designation would allow for the future development of up to four multi-family units, which would directly increase the Rodeo area population by an estimated 11-12 people, based on the Census 2020 estimate of 2.87people per household for Contra Costa County. Therefore, there would not be a significant increase in need for police services. 6. Parks and Recreation: As the project will add to the County’s population if development occurs, the future development would be required to pay applicable park fees per unit. The Park Impact fee collected will be used for acquisition of parkland and development of parks and recreational facilities. The Park Dedication ordinance allows the developer of land for residential use to dedicate land, pay an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The site is located in FEMA-designated Flood Zone AE. If development occurs in the future, the project would be reviewed by the Public Works Department to ensure compliance with all flood control and drainage ordinances and requirements. CPC – February 9, 2022 County File #GP20-0003 Findings & COAs Page 4 of 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Fees 1. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $5,200.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time, and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, within 60 days of the permit’s effective date, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013-340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due from the date of approval, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%). The applicant 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. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Department of Conservation & Development, Community Development Division within the 90 days of the approval date of this permit. Hercules Parker AveParker Ave4 t h S t 3 r d S t 2 n d S t Napa AveLake AveVaqueros AveGarretson AveRodeo AveHarris AveR egatta P ointSharon AvePacific Ave Pinole AveRailroad AveMahoneySt Tormey Ave Suisun AveBarnesW a y Investment St Pinole Ave3rd St RodeoCreekTrailMap Created 1/25/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Developm ent, GIS Group30 M uir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0390780195Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. APN: 357-081-015General Plan Amendment (GP20-0003)General Plan Designations Parker AveParker Ave4 t h S t 3 r d S t 2 n d S t Napa AveLake AveVaqueros AveGarretson AveRodeo AveHarris AveR egatta P ointSharon AvePacific Ave Pinole AveRailroad AveMahoneySt Tormey Ave NShelterBaySuisun AveBarnesW a y Investment St Pinole Ave3rd St RodeoCreekTrailHercules Current General Plan Ame nded General Plan SITE SITE GP20-0003 Project Site ParcelsGeneral Plan Designations SH (Single Family Residential - High) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Med.) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MH (Multiple Family Resi dential - High) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) OF (Office) CO (Com mercial) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) ML SH SH PR PRPS PS OF COMH M-1 M-2 OS ML SH SH PR PS OF M-2 OS MH MH MH Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:564 Notes0.00.01 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. GP20-0003 ZONING: RODEO AREA PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -SD-1 (Single Family Residential - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) R-6 -TOV -K (Single Family Residential - Tree Obstruction of View Ordinance and Kensington Combining District) R-6, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Two Family Residential - Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Planned Unit - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Multiple Family Residential - Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Forestry Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) F-1 (Water Recreational) F-1 -FH (Water Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-2, -BS (General Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) A-2 -FH (General Agriculture - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 -SD-1 (General Agriculture - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) A-2 -X (General Agriculture - Railroad Corridor Combining District) ASSESSOR’S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE357 8 12 34 56 78 910 1112 1314 1516 1718 1920 2122 2324 2526 2728 2930 3132 3334 3536373839 40 41 42 43 44 1 2 3 4 5 678910 1112 1314 1516 1718 1920 2122 2324 2526 2728 2930 3132 3334 35363738394041424344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 55025S79^08’W 125 2550 75 12575 50502525505050 41’8"41’8"12541’8"41’8"41’8"41’8"5050505050505050502525255050505025252510’N10^52’W251050125 25050125 S79^08’W 70 250 69 41 40 100 12546465504369 41 112 112 12536 362’438912538 2550353535505050505050505050505050125N10^52’W125125 37.537.5 50 25252525125 250 37.5 37.5 50 60115 75 40 20 55010010010010075 40 115 115 10055075752550501001005050505085 70 5050505050505050757550N10^52’W57.50 115 57.50 5050115 57.50 57.50 20 60 55 1157575 125’N10^52’W60 11570100 125 5025535THIRD STREET IN V E S T M E N T ST R E E T N82 ^ W AVE.PARKERSTREETFOURTHGARRETSONLAKEAVE.AVE.AVE.RODEO1958 H.R. 07 09 15 05 081 082 MAP OF RODEO A- B- 1- D-91 23 24 13 1431 12 15 32 09 16 17 18 07 19 06 20 05 04 03 21 2825 26 01 04 03 02 22 05 06 29 07 08 19 2509 26 23 10 15 11 1412 16 13 21 35 01 02 33 03 34 17 04 38 0615 14 07 13 12 11 29 32 37 36 083 082 081 .10Ac. .23Ac. "A" "B" 11 1 1 AAB A B B A 250 70 125 22W 14W 15 1"=100’ 29 2725 25252525PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR’S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 27 30 28 "A" "B" "C" "D" 2- 2 2 2 17555554040404040402525505033 083 31 5/23/07 SUB’N BLK IW TOWN OF RODEO MB 21-568 62PM47 188PM39 1/27/78 11/10/03 37.5037.5037.5037.5030 Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:564 Notes0.00.01 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. GP20-0003 ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations 343 Rodeo Avenue General Plan Amendment County File #GP20-0003 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 26, 2022 Site Information Location: 343 Rodeo Avenue, Rodeo Lot size: 5,750 square feet (0.13 acres) General Plan: Public and Semi-Public (PS) Zoning: Rodeo Planned Unit District (P-1) Surrounding Area: Mix of single-family and multi-family neighborhoods, offices, and commercial shops Aerial Photo Proposed Project General Plan Amendment: Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Multiple- Family Residential-High Density (MH) MH density range: 22.0-29.9 units per net acre Results in 3-4 units maximum Overall community is residential, and there are other examples of multi- family development within the community Zoning (Rodeo P-1) P-1 zoning is intended to allow flexibility in regulation and design Rodeo P-1 requires minimum lot size of 10,000 sqft. for multi-family development Numerous examples of multi -family development in the community on similarly sized lots Existing & Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations County Planning Commission Considered by the County Planning Commission (CPC) at the February 9, 2022 hearing. Voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend adoption of the proposed GPA to the Board of Supervisors, but with a modification that the land use designation be changed to Multiple-Family Residential-Medium Density (MM) rather than the MH designation requested by the applicant. CPC cited concerns with neighborhood compatibility and the height limit of future development that may take place on-site. Staff Recommendation ADOPT a motion recommending the County Board of Supervisors; FIND, for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Act (CEQA) and County CEQA Guidelines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b);APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP13-0001); ADOPT the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP20-0003) redesignating the subject site to Multiple-Family Residential-High Density (MH); DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.  )URP6DQGUD6PLWK 6HQW0RQGD\$SULO$0 7R&OHUNRIWKH%RDUG 6XEMHFW)Z3URSHUW\#5RGHR$YH )ROORZ8S)ODJ)ROORZXS )ODJ6WDWXV&RPSOHWHG    ^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵdΘdzĂŚŽŽDĂŝůĨŽƌŝWŚŽŶĞ ĞŐŝŶĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͗  KŶ&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϮ͕ϳ͗ϭϭWD͕^ĂŶĚƌĂ^ŵŝƚŚ     ^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵdΘdzĂŚŽŽDĂŝůĨŽƌŝWŚŽŶĞ ĞŐŝŶĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͗  KŶ&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϮ͕Ϯ͗ϱϱWD͕^ĂŶĚƌĂ^ŵŝƚŚ хǁƌŽƚĞ͗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the public hearing on the Byron Airport Development Program, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. CERTIFY that the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before Project approval and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis. 3. CERTIFY the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program. 4. ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Project. 5. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. 6. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/128 amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation of the subject 11.7-acre parcel from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS) and to modify the language of General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element Policies 5-66 and 5-77. (County File #GP12-0003); 7. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-13 rezoning the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (County File #RZ21-3262). 8. ADOPT the findings in support of the Byron Airport Development Program. 9. APPROVE the Development Plan Modification (County File #DP14-3008). 10. APPROVE the conditions of approval for the Byron Airport Development Program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Daniel Barrios, (925) 655-2901 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Byron Airport Development Program, County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 11. APPROVE the Byron Airport Development Program. 12. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Completion with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefit Fund (Mariposa Fund) has covered consultant costs and most Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff cost associated with this project. Originally, $349,270 from the Mariposa Fund was allocated to this project. As amended, the contract with Dudek, the County's CEQA consultant, is for $272,586, to be paid out of the Mariposa Fund. The remaining amount of $76,684 was intended to cover staff time; however, on July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors allocated an additional $140,000 from the Mariposa Fund to this project to cover the significant cost of staff time invested into this project, resulting in a new total allocation of $489,270. The Land Development Fund covered a small portion of DCD staff costs. BACKGROUND: Summary The proposed project is a County-initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA), Development Plan Modification (DPM), Rezone, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Amendment for the Byron Airport to expand the range of uses allowed on the airport property to improve the airport's economic viability. The proposed GPA would include revised policies that update and clarify the range of land uses and activities allowed at Byron Airport, similar to those already adopted for the County’s other general aviation airport, Buchanan Field in Concord, as well as redesignation of an 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from AL to PS. The current Development Plan for the airport would be modified to permit all of the new uses either by-right or with approval of a land use (conditional) permit. The DPM would also establish certain development standards, such as maximum building heights, maximum floor area, landscaping requirements, etc. The rezone would change the 11.7-acre parcel from A-3 to P-1 to be part of the Byron Airport Development Program. The ALUCP would be updated with new policies and maps specific to Byron Airport, which would reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan for Byron Airport, the 2005 Byron Airport Master Plan, and guidance set forth in the most recent version of the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Site/Area Information A. General Plan: The subject site’s General Plan land use designations include Public and Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Agricultural Lands (AL). The PS designation includes properties owned by public governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc. The OS designation includes publicly-owned open space lands which are not designated as Public and Semi-Public, Watershed, or Parks and Recreation. Lands designated Open Space include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources, or geologic hazards. OS also includes privately-owned properties for which future development rights have been deeded to a public agency or private entity, such as a land trust. The primary purpose of the AL designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The proposed project is located primarily within the PS designation, in which public airports are a compatible use. The existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas are designated as PS. The proposed project includes redesignation of the 11.7-acre parcel from AL to PS, which, after its redesignation, would result in the entire project being located within the PS designation. The remainder of the airport property is designated OS, consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property. B. Zoning: Byron Airport is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1); the 11.7-acre parcel is zoned Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). C. Existing Site Condition: Byron Airport is located in southeastern Contra Costa County. The airport property consists of 1,427 acres, including 1,307 acres south of Armstrong Road and 120 acres north of Armstrong Road. The proposed Byron Airport Development Program site excludes the 120 acres north of Armstrong Road, but includes an 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of approximately 1,319 acres. The project site includes the existing airport facilities and areas proposed for development (referred to as the development area). However, most of the project site is reserved for habitat management. Byron Airport's existing development footprint is small compared to the County's other airport, Buchanan Field. The facility has two nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the west-facing “V” formed by the two runways and include aircraft surface storage, runway apron, hangars, and office space. Byron Airport does not have a control tower. Significant buildings include the 2,400-square-foot administration building (500 Eagle Court), a 7,500-square-foot maintenance hangar (505 Eagle Court), the Byron Jet Center (760 Osprey Court), and two executive hangars. Other aircraft storage consists of T-hangars and tie-downs. Accessory facilities include a wash rack, fuel farm, and 300-square-foot pump house for fire protection. A small building on the north side of the airport (6900 Falcon Way) was part of the original Byron Airpark and is currently leased to Bay Area Sky Diving. Electrical power is supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric Company via Holey Road. There is no natural gas service at the airport. The on-site water system consists of a domestic well with a 4,000-gallon holding tank, booster pump, and chlorinator; however, this water supply is non-potable. Drinking water is provided by bottled water deliveries. The sanitary system consists of a 3,000-gallon septic tank and lift station that pumps to a leach field located southwest of the aircraft apron. D. Surrounding Land Use: Byron Airport is located on the western edge of the Central Valley. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner-of-war camp, is located north of the airport. Agricultural and rural residential uses border the east and west sides of the airport property. To the south are agricultural lands and property owned by East Bay Regional Park District. Nearby communities include Byron, approximately 2.5 miles north, Discovery Bay 4 miles to the northeast, and Mountain House, approximately 4 miles southeast. Background The original Byron Airport Master Plan (Airport Master Plan) was adopted in 1986, and the airport opened in 1994. The Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005 and identifies a 20-year plan to support aviation activities at the airport. The 2005 Airport Master Plan also identifies potential development opportunities on airport property to increase airport revenue and achieve economic self-sufficiency. In 2015, the County identified a suite of proposed land uses for development on airport property, building on the framework of the 2005 Airport Master Plan. The uses included aviation reserve land uses, which would be directly associated with aircraft operations (e.g., hangar development, aircraft repair and maintenance), and airport-related land uses, which would not be aeronautical uses but would be compatible with on-going aircraft operations. The County’s existing General Plan policies, zoning regulations, and ALUCP policies specific to the airport do not accommodate many of the proposed land uses. Therefore, the County’s Department of Conservation and Development and Public Works Department – Airports Division are working collaboratively to amend the General Plan, zoning, Development Plan, and ALUCP to enable on-site development in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. The project would provide for both aviation development and non-aviation (airport-related) development. Aviation uses include aircraft storage, administrative facilities, instructional facilities, fixed base operators, pilot and passenger terminal improvements, cargo facilities, and aircraft repair and service. Non-aviation development includes a wide range of industrial, commercial, and office uses that benefit from proximity to the airport and the regional roadway network. These uses may include warehousing and distribution; light manufacturing; research and development; regional retail, including construction materials and home goods; service commercial; and offices. Local retail and food service may also be provided to serve the airport and local residents. Project Description A. Objectives: The County identified the following project objectives: 1. Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the 2005 Airport Master Plan. 2. Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through development of airport-related land uses. 3. Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. 4. Provide a streamlined planning framework for future development consistent with the General Plan and ALUCP. B. General Plan Amendment: The County General Plan designates the existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas as Public and Semi-Public (PS). The remainder of the airport property is designated as Open Space (consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property). The General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change. The 11.7-acre acquisition parcel would be redesignated from Agricultural Lands (AL) to PS to be consistent with the rest of the developable airport property (see Attachment D, General Plan Amendment Map). General Plan Policy 5-66 states, “Establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed.” This policy would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on airport property if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Airport Master Plan for Byron Airport. Policy 5-77, relatd to the ALUCP for Byron Airport, would be updated to reflect the new compatibility zone designations (Zone B-1 would become Safety Zone 2) and the additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP. See Attachment E for the full text of the General Plan policy changes. C. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update: Every county in California that contains at least one public airport must prepare an Airport Land Use Plan (also known as an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan), per the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq.). The purpose of ALUCPs is to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports. ALUCPs achieve this by identifying land use types and intensities that are compatible with four key factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,provides guidance on airport land use planning in its California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The ALUCP for Byron Airport was adopted in 2000, with minor modifications in 2006 and 2016. The current ALUCP reflects the original 1986 Airport Master Plan for the East Contra Costa County Airport (now Byron Airport). The Byron Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005. In addition, the Airport Layout Plan—required by the Federal Aviation Administration and a main component of the Airport Master Plan—was updated in 2016. The standards used in the current ALUCP for Byron Airport are based on the 1993 edition of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Caltrans has updated this guidance document twice since that time, in 2002 and 2011. Thus, the current ALUCP for Byron Airport does not reflect the latest planning and forecasts for the airport, and is based on dated compatibility planning guidance. The 2016 Airport Layout Plan update also is not reflected in the current ALUCP for Byron Airport. The effect is an ALUCP that does not allow the type of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan, which would provide for the economic development and fiscal self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport would revise the policies for Byron Airport, consistent with current Caltrans guidance and the policy framework in effect at Buchanan Airport. The countywide policies in the ALUCP affecting Byron Airport would not change. Key changes for Byron Airport policies are described below by category: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. 1. Safety: Several important changes would be made to Byron Airport’s safety policies. These are driven primarily by applying the latest Caltrans guidance to the airport. The current ALUCP for Byron Airport uses six “composite” zones known as zones A, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D. These zones combine noise and safety criteria to determine compatible land uses. The proposed ALUCP update would identify six safety zones (1 through 6) consistent with the current Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. By using more carefully defined safety zones and by addressing noise compatibility separately, a greater range of development types would be allowed. In addition, applying current Airport Land Use Planning Handbook standards for non-residential development would increase the intensity of development allowed, and thereby support the County’s goals for economic development at the airport. 2. Noise: The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport separates the noise criteria from the safety criteria when determining compatible use. Noise compatibility is based on noise contours developed from forecasted aviation activity. The aviation forecasts for the airport remain valid and would not be revised as part of the proposed ALUCP update. Therefore, the noise contours would not change. The commercial and light industrial uses planned for the airport are not considered to be noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, separating the noise criteria from the safety zones would increase the range and intensity of non-residential land uses. 3. Airspace Protection: Airspace protection policies regulate development that may interfere with the safe navigation of aircraft, including physical structures or potential hazards such as dust, smoke, light/glare, and wildlife. Minor changes would be made to airspace policies to reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan, including runway approach profiles. However, no significant changes would be made to the policies, and there would be no effect on allowable land uses. 4. Overflight: Overflight policies do not regulate land use but identify the areas subject to noise from overflight (as compared to noise from aircraft approaches and departures). The overflight area, along with airspace protection discussed above, helps to define the airport influence area, in which home buyers must be notified of the presence of the airport. Overflight policies also identify areas where aviation easements (dedicating airspace rights to the airport) should be acquired. The notification area would be slightly larger in the proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport to reflect the 2017 Airport Layout Plan, but there would be no change to policies that would affect allowable land uses or future development. The ALUCP update will be adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission subsequent to the Board of Supervisors certifying the Byron Airport Development Program Final EIR. Adoption of the ALUCP update is anticipated for May or June 2022. D. Development Plan Modification and Rezone: The airport property is currently zoned P-1. The P-1 zoning is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space areas while ensuring compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. The amended Planned Unit District will identify four separate development areas: Aviation, Airport Related, Low-Intensity Use, and Habitat Management (see Attachment G, Site Plan). These areas are further described below. The most important change would be to the airport-related uses, which would allow non-residential development that is compatible with the ALUCP for Byron Airport. These uses would include light industry, warehousing and logistics, commercial, and low-intensity office. In addition, the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County would be rezoned from A-3 to P-1 in order to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program (see Attachment F, Rezone Ordinance 2022-13). The Byron Airport Development Program also includes the following modifications to the P-1: 1. Aviation: A total of 23.5 acres is designated for aviation uses, located adjacent to the taxiways and runways. The aviation area is adjacent to a developed 10.5-acre aircraft storage area and 9.7-acre aircraft parking area south of the main runway (Runway 12-30). Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure (e.g., control tower, terminals), hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel (e.g., aircraft service and fuel, rental car facilities, pilots lounge, meeting facilities), and businesses that directly rely on aviation (e.g., agricultural aviation, aerial surveys and photography, air charter businesses, air cargo, just-in-time delivery). 2. Non-Aviation (Airport-Related): Approximately 46.6 acres of Byron Airport is designated for non-aviation uses. This includes 34.9 acres east of the main runway on the existing airport property, and 11.7 acres in the adjacent parcel. The 46.6 acres would support commercial and light-industrial uses that are compatible with airport operations and would benefit from being located at an airport, with access to Highway 4, Interstate 205, and Interstate 580. A variety of retail, service, warehouse and distribution, light manufacturing, and low-density office uses would be allowed. 3. Low-Intensity Use: The areas adjacent to the ends of the primary runway and within the “no build” area adjacent to the runway, approximately 31 acres, are designated as low-intensity use. No structures would be allowed within this area. Infrastructure improvements may be allowed within this area. 4. Habitat Management Lands: Most of the project site, approximately 814 acres, is owned and managed by the County as wildlife habitat, consistent with permit conditions imposed when the airport was constructed. The proposed project does not propose any changes to habitat management lands. 5. Development Reserve: The 2005 Airport Master Plan identified a potential development area larger than the one currently under consideration. The areas that have been removed from the aviation and non-aviation development area are identified as “development reserve” in the proposed site plan. There are no land uses assigned to this category, it merely denotes an area that was previously identified for potential development in the 2005 Airport Master Plan but is no longer considered part of the proposed development program. 6. Development Scenario: Taking into account the land use areas described above and the proposed safety zones, DCD and Airports Division staff developed a preferred development scenario. This scenario represents a reasonable distribution of compatible land uses on the airport property and forms the basis of the impacts analysis in the EIR. The Development Scenario (Attachment H) assigns a percentage of available acreage to the various uses (e.g., light industry), and estimates the potential building area as increments of 1,000 square feet for those uses based on floor-to-area ratio. The number of people who may occupy the site at any given time was then calculated using intensity factors from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the County’s General Plan. The percentages assigned to each non-aviation land use are estimated, but future land use demand would drive the actual development scenario. As long as the overall building area is not exceeded, the impacts of development are not anticipated to exceed the environmental analysis conducted as part of this project. Ongoing monitoring of land uses would ensure that incoming land uses do not exceed the impacts analysis of this proposed program. Environmental Review DCD determined that the project required preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) and, in accordance with CEQA, distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on September 21, 2017. The Draft EIR was released for public review on July 1, 2021, with the 60-day public comment period ending on August 30, 2021. The Final EIR is attached for the Board of Supervisors' consideration. The EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts that would occur if the project was implemented and recommended mitigation measures that would reduce most, but not all, of the potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels; some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The attached CEQA Findings contain a statement of overriding considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts. All impacts and mitigation measures are spelled out in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All mitigation measures are also included in the attached conditions of approval. A. Public Consultation & Comments on the EIR: DCD conferred with a number of federal, State, and local agencies and other County departments prior to and during preparation of the EIR. Correspondence was received in response to the NOP, and written comments were received from the following agencies and organizations during the public comment period for the Draft EIR: 1. Wilton Rancheria 2. California Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division 3. Delta Stewardship Council 4. Contra Costa Water District All correspondence received during and after the 60-day public comment period for the Draft EIR and all responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR. B. Summary of Environmental Impacts: The Draft EIR identifies environmental impacts which would occur if the project was implemented. Potentially significant and/or significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the following Draft EIR topic areas: 1. Aesthetics: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.1 (pages 3.1-1 to 3.1-53) and in the Final EIR. The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts to views from surrounding roadways, including Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 2. Air Quality: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.2 (pages 3.2-1 to 3.2-42) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur during both construction and operation. 3. Biology: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.3 (pages 3.3-1 to 3.1-38) and in the Final EIR. The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts to a variety of special-status plant and animal species and their habitats. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 4. Cultural Resources: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.4 (pages 3.4-1 to 3.4-22) and in the Final EIR. The project site is in the vicinity of Northern Valley Yokut territory, and the surrounding area is known to contain numerous archeological and historical resources. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 5. Geology, Soils and Minerals: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.5 (pages 3.5-1 to 3.5-22) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to expansive soil and liquefaction, as well as paleontological resources. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.6 (pages 3.6-1 to 3.6-40) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur during operation and the implementation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.7 (pages 3.7-1 to 3.5-24) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to hazardous material storage, use, and release sites. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.8 (pages 3.8-1 to 3.8-37) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to land disturbance, creation of impervious surfaces, and/or release or discharge of pollutants to groundwater or regional waters. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 9. Noise: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.10 (pages 3.10-1 to 3.10-28) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. 10. Transportation and Traffic: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.13 (pages 3.13-1 to 3.13-54) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. 11. Utilities: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.14 (pages 3.14-1 to 3.14-26) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to exceeding the capacity of on-site utility systems, including water and wastewater. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. County Planning Commission Hearing The County Planning Commission (CPC) reviewed the Byron Airport Development Program at its March 9, 2022, hearing. The CPC took public testimony and voted 6-0 to adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the project as recommended by staff. No significant issues were raised during the hearing. Staff Discussion A. Economic Development : Byron Airport currently operates at an annual net deficit. In order to develop economically beneficial uses on the airport, development intensities must be increased to a level more consistent with current California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance. In addition, by de-coupling the noise and safety criteria in the ALUCP, a greater range of industrial and commercial uses could be allowed at the airport. This approach would also create consistency with Buchanan Field, which does not use composite compatibility zones. The proposed project would help implement General Plan Goal 5-Q, to encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county, by providing for the economic development and financial self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The General Plan policies regarding the airport would be amended to clarify that compatible non-aviation uses would be allowed on airport property. General Plan Policy 5-77 would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on-airport if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Byron Airport Master Plan. The P-1 zoning for Byron Airport would also be revised to identify the land use categories used in the ALUCP: aviation, non-aviation, low intensity, and habitat management. Additional land uses that could be allowed within the aviation and non-aviation areas would be identified, as discussed above and in Draft EIR Section 2.6, Proposed Land Uses and Zoning. The P-1 modification would specify that all proposed land uses must be reviewed by County staff for consistency with the current ALUCP. The zoning would also implement the ALUCP and General Plan standards for compatible land use, including height restrictions. Not only would increasing the economic viability of Byron Airport help it operate in a financially beneficial way to the County, but it would also help support the jobs/housing balance in East Contra Costa County. According to General Plan Table 2-4, the projected jobs/hosing ratio for East County in 2020 was 0.45 jobs per resident. This low ratio results in a large population of East County residents commuting out of the county for work, rather than commuting locally. This mass exodus from East County communities creates significant traffic along local roads and highways, among other negative impacts to the environment and quality of life. Providing new, high quality economic opportunities for residents in East County would help to improve in the jobs/housing ratio. B. Transportation and Traffic: As discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.13 (pages 3.13-1 to 3.13-54) and in the Final EIR, significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per employee for the project is 21.2, compared to 14.0 for the county and 14.9 for the Bay Area. A slight decrease in VMT per employee under the “with project” conditions compared to the “without project” conditions indicates that the project would improve VMT efficiency in the region. However, the VMT “significance of impact” threshold requires comparison of the project VMT with the regional average (i.e., Bay Area Average), and not a comparison of with project and no project scenarios. The County threshold for Employment Projects (office, industrial, and institutional projects) is that the project VMT should be 15% below Bay Area average commute VMT per employee (i.e., home-based work VMT per employee). The project’s VMT per employee (21.2) is higher than the Bay Area VMT per employee (14.9). To meet the threshold of 15% below Bay Area Average and have a less than significant VMT impact, the HBW VMT per employee for the project should be approximately 12.7, which would require a 40% reduction. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified this as a potentially significant VMT impact. Transportation demand management strategies and mitigation measures that can potentially achieve VMT reductions are provided in Draft EIR Section 3.13.5 and the MMRP. The project also has the potential to increase the volume of truck traffic on the roadway network to serve warehousing and light industrial development. Although regional roadways, such as Byron Highway and State Route (SR-4), already safely handle significant volumes of truck traffic, the rural roads providing access to Byron Airport may not support the increase in truck traffic. Existing traffic volumes can be handled on these roads, but they may be inadequate for increased volumes of project-related traffic, including increased truck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR identified this as a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the County or future developers would construct the street improvements along Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road described in Mitigation Measure (MM)-TRAF-9 to reduce access impacts related to heavy truck traffic. Finally, due to the potential for the proposed project to add traffic to Caltrans facilities within the traffic impact study area, the Caltrans Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps and Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps were analyzed for queuing impacts. When comparing the Future Year 2040 scenario with the addition of the proposed project, queueing is forecasted to increase for all vehicle movements during the AM peak hour at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps; vehicle traffic would continue to spill into the mainline lanes in Future Year 2040 “no Project” and “plus Project” conditions. No current funded or planned improvements are identified at the I-205 westbound ramps with Mountain House Parkway. The SR-239 Feasibility Study Final Report identifies potential alignments for the proposed SR-239 corridor between SR-4 to the north and I-580 and/or I-205 to the south, which would reduce traffic volumes on I-580, Vasco Road, and Byron Highway (SR-239 is a proposed roadway connecting Vasco Road in Contra Costa County to the I-580/I-205 interchange in Alameda County or I-205 in San Joaquin County). As such, shifts in regional traffic patterns could also reduce congestion and queuing at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps. However, as the SR-239 Feasibility Study does not identify specific improvements, nor are specific improvements planned or funded in the area, hazards related to queuing at this off-ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. C. Utilities: The project site is not connected to public water services; instead, the airport relies on existing on-site water wells and a 4,000-gallon on-site water tank for its domestic, non-potable water. Bottled water is used for drinking water. Development of the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the existing system, resulting in a potentially significant impact. According to the Water Supply Assessment completed for the project, at the programmatic level of analysis, sufficient water supplies are available to serve its water demand under normal and dry conditions, including existing and planned land uses, over the 20-year projection period (Draft EIR Appendix I). This would be accomplished through the use of one or more of the proposed options, including on-site expansion of wells for extraction and treatment of additional groundwater, importation of treated water from Discovery Bay Community Services District (CSD), or importation and on-site treatment of additional water from Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID). However, as development under the proposed project proceeds, each of the potential supplies considered would require additional feasibility analysis to determine the actual potential for project implementation, and would require appropriate agreements (e.g., will-serve letter) from the off-site suppliers before any development requiring potable water could be permitted. This process is incorporated into MM-UTIL-1. Connection to either Discovery Bay CSD or BBID may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of groundwater systems would be the preferred method. The project site is not connected to public sewer services; instead, the airport relies on an existing on-site septic system and leach field for its sanitary service. The 2013 Byron Airport Infrastructure Study considered two potential wastewater generation rates for bulk warehousing and industrial development: the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s Collection System Master Plan rate of 1,000 gallon per day (gpd) per gross acre, and the City of Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet of building square footage. The Infrastructure Study used the Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet, resulting in an estimated 96,000 gpd build-out demand. The development assumptions in the Infrastructure Study are greater than for the proposed project (146.9 acres and 3,840,000 square feet of building space, compared to 70.9 acres and 941,000 square feet of building space for the proposed project). Applying the Oakland rate to the proposed project would result in an estimated wastewater flow of 23,525 gpd. However, the Town of Discovery Bay, which contains the nearest wastewater treatment plant, uses a wastewater generation rate of 2,000 gpd per acre of industrial development and 1,600 gpd per acre of commercial development. Using these flow rates, wastewater flow would be 89,920 gpd for non-aviation uses. MM-UTIL-2 requires implementation of a wastewater system, per the recommendations of the Byron Airport Infrastructure Study (Mead & Hunt 2013), which studied several options for expansion of the on-site sewer system. The options include requiring each new use or development to provide for its own wastewater disposal, in effect distributing wastewater treatment to smaller leach fields throughout the site, or development of centralized treatment though use of an on-site package wastewater treatment plant and establishment of collection pipelines. For an on-site treatment plant, effluent disposal may be accomplished through landscape irrigation if the effluent is treated to a level to meet Title 22 CCR standards. A third option is connection to an existing sewer system: either the Discovery Bay CSD or the Byron Sanitary District. Connection to Discovery Bay would involve off-site construction of a force main and likely modifications to the existing sewage lift station (or a new lift station). Connection to Byron Sanitary District would likely require an expansion of Byron Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment facility. Connection to either Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of septic systems and leach fields would be the ideal method. The proposed project’s requirements would exceed existing water and wastewater infrastructure, which would have a potentially significant impact without mitigation. The construction impacts associated with expansion of required infrastructure are addressed in the Draft and Final EIR and do not represent new significant impacts. Conclusion The record demonstrates that the Byron Airport Development Program warrants approval. The project would not threaten the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; it would improve the economic viability of Byron Airport; it would expand economic opportunities in East County; and most potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Staff therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a motion to approve the Byron Airport Development Program, as outlined at the beginning of this report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Byron Airport Developmet Program is not approved, then the airport will remain in its current state. The General Plan Transportation Element policies will not be amended, the 11.7-acre parcel will retain its AL designation, the P-1 zoning and Development Plan will remain unchanged, and the ALUCP will not be updated because that update relies on Board certification of the Final EIR. The project's overarching goal, economic self-sufficiency for Byron Airport, will not be realized. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Jay and Carol Wyant, owners Armstrong Road Property; Troy. CONTINUED to 9:00 a.m May 17, 2022. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/128 Attachment A - CEQA Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration Attachment B - Project Findings and Conditions of Approval as Recommended by County Planning Commission Attachment C - Byron Airport Development Program Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment D - General Plan Amendment Map Attachment E - Amended Byron Airport General Plan Policies Attachment F - Rezone Ordinance 2022-13 Attachment G - Site Plan Attachment H - Development Scenario Attachment I - Permitted Uses Attachment J - CEQA Comments Attachment K - County Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment L - Existing Maps Attachment M - Byron Airport Presentation THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/128 IN THE MATTER of approving a General Plan Amendment for the Byron Airport Development Program. WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 26, 2022, to consider the Byron Airport Development Program, proposed for the unincorporated Byron area. The Project includes certification of an environmental impact report and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Project, adoption of a General Plan Amendment (County File #GP12-0003) and rezoning ordinance (County File #21-3262), and approval of a development plan modification (County File #DP14-3008). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the Project amends the Land Use Element Map to redesignate approximately 11.7 acres of land from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the Project amends the Transportation and Circulation Element of the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan to revise policies 5-66 and 5-77 to expand the range of land uses and activities allowed at Byron Airport and modify the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) compatibility zone designations. WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: A. The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment findings: 1. No change to the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed, and no extension of urban services outside the ULL is proposed. The portion of the subject property where development may occur is fully inside the ULL and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The Public and Semi-Public (PS) land use designation for Byron Airport is non-urban. All proposed land uses, both aviation-related and non-aviation-related, will be located on land designated PS and within the ULL. 2. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not cause a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the County may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, and public facilities. The existing land use designations for the subject site, Public and Semi-Public (PS) and Agricultural Lands (AL), are non-urban land use designations. Changing the land use designation for 11.7 acres from AL to PS does not change the percentage of land devoted to urban and non-urban uses. 3. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program (GMP), and related CCTA resolutions. The CCTA GMP Implementation Guide (2021) sets forth procedures for local agency consultation and evaluation of impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments. The Byron Airport Development Program EIR was evaluated according to the CCTA GMP GPA Review Process and Technical Procedures for evaluating transportation impacts. Therefore, the project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related CCTA resolutions. 4. The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated areas. The GPA involves revising Transportation and Circulation Element policies 5-66 and 5-77 to allow additional uses at Byron Airport and integrate updates to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, respectively, and redesignating 11.7 acres from AL to PS. The two policies are very specific to Byron Airport and do not affect County policy unrelated to that facility. Redesignating 11.7 acres for acquisition by the County is consistent with the General Plan's policies for the Southeast County/Byron area and compatible with surrounding land use designations. Therefore, adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if such amendment is deemed to be “in the public interest.” The Project helps the County achieve General Plan Goal 5-Q, to encourage development and operation of two general purpose public airports, by supporting Byron Airport's fiscal self-sufficiency. The Project achieves this by allowing additional aviation and non-aviation development on airport property, which in turn allows for revenue increases from ground leases, user fees, and other revenue streams. The Project also serves to improve the severe jobs/housing imbalance in East County by adding employment opportunities at the airport. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation elements, both mandatory elements, and is part of the first consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2022. B. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment (County File #GP12-0003) to redesignate an 11.7-acre portion of the subject property from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS), and revise Transportation and Circulation Element policies 5-66 and 5-77, and ADOPTS said General Plan Amendment as part of the first consolidated General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation elements for calendar year 2022, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Daniel Barrios, (925) 655-2901 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: 1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BYRON AIRPORT DEVLOPMENT PROGRAM (PROJECT) I. Introduction No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried unless one or more written findings is made for each of those significant effects. Public Resources Code 21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the lead agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding. Contra Costa County (County) is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the EIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that: a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with Public Resource Code 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision- making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. 2 The County proposed to approve the Byron Airport Development Program (project). The County has certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project which identifies significant effects on the environment (SCH# 2017092059). These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations in Section VIII, infra, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) The Final EIR for the proposed project identified potentially significant effects that could result from implementation. However, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the project approval would reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less than significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less-than- significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific project benefits in a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Board adopts these Findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR and approval of the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the Public Resources Code, the Board also finds that the Final EIR reflects the Board's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. As required by CEQA, the Board, in adopting these Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. The Board finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. II. Project Overview The County intends to amend its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), General Plan, and Planned Unit District zoning to broaden the range of uses allowed on airport property. These amendments will include a variety of aviation uses (terminal, hangers, fixed-base operators, aircraft sales, aviation supporting businesses, etc.) and airport-compatible uses (light industry, warehousing and distribution, general commercial and retail, offices, etc.). Approximately 941,000 square feet of new development may be constructed under the project. The project is further described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the EIR (incorporated here by reference). III. Project Objectives CEQA requires the statement of a project’s objectives to be clearly written so as to define the underlying purpose of a project in order to permit development of a reasonable range of alternatives and aid the lead agency in making findings when considering a project for approval. The objectives and goals of the proposed project are as follows: 3 • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport- related land uses. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. • Provide a streamlined planning framework for future development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. IV. Environmental Review Process Notice of Preparation In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for public and agency review from September 20, 2017, through October 20, 2017 (included as Appendix A of the EIR). The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the proposed project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the lead agency held a public scoping meeting on October 16, 2017. Responsible agencies and members of the public were invited to attend and provide input on the scope of the EIR. Comments from agencies and the public in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix B of the EIR. General concerns and issues raised in response to the NOP are summarized in the Executive Summary of the EIR and are addressed in the technical sections in Chapter 3 of the EIR. Draft EIR and Public Review The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 60 days, between July 1, 2021 and August 30, 2021. All comment letters received in response to the Draft EIR were reviewed and included in the Final EIR, and responses to these comments relevant to CEQA were addressed in the Final EIR in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15088, 15132). Final EIR Upon completion of the Draft EIR public review period, a Final EIR was prepared that includes written comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period and the County’s responses to those comments. The intent of the Final EIR is to provide a forum to address comments pertaining to the information and analysis contained within the Draft EIR, and to provide an opportunity for clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR as needed and as appropriate. The Final EIR also includes the MMRP prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resource Code. The Final EIR includes revisions to the Draft EIR made in 4 response to agency or public comments. The Draft EIR and Final EIR together comprise the EIR for the proposed project. V. Record of Proceedings The record of proceedings, including the Final EIR and supporting documents is available during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) at: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94533 VI. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures The EIR identifies significant environmental effects (or impacts) resulting from implementation of the project. The County’s findings with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth below for each significant impact. The following statement of findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the County, and states the County’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, accompanied by a brief explanation. Full explanations of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Board ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the County Board of Supervisors finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects on the environment to less than significant levels. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 5 Aesthetics Visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Impact 3.1-2). Depending on the massing of these buildings, the impact to public views (public road adjacent to the airport) would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: Non-aviation development shall be subject to the following design requirements: • Long facades should be designed with building articulation and landscaping to break them up into smaller visual elements, avoiding public views of uninterrupted blank walls. • For industrial and warehouse buildings, bright reflective colors and materials shall not be allowed. Paint colors should be earth tones. Natural finishes such as brick or stone facades may also be incorporated into the design. • Project lighting shall comply with the policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Loading areas should be located and designed to minimize direct exposure to public views. • Structures and parking lots located on the eastern edge of the airport property shall incorporate landscaping to screen public views. The type, quantity and placement of plant material should be selected for its compatibility with airport uses (tree heights, plants that are not wildlife attractants), as well as structure, texture, color and compatibility with the building design and materials. The design of non-aviation development shall be reviewed by both Department of Conservation and Development and Airports Division staff prior to issuance of building permits for conformance with these standards. Aviation uses shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential aesthetic impact (Impact 3.1-2) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 6 Rationale The proposed mitigation measure includes design requirements and design review procedures to ensure that future structures would be visually compatible and properly screened from views from public roads. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the potential impact to aesthetics would be reduced to less than significant. Air Quality Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Impact 3.2-4). Operation of the project could result in exceedances of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds for NO x and PM 10 and the project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants; the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-3: For non-aviation facilities with construction proposed within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors, a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared to assess exposure of existing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) during project construction. If the health risk assessment determines that cancer and non-cancer impacts would be less than significant, no additional measures are needed. Alternatively, the results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than-significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: • Portable equipment used during construction shall be powered by electricity from the grid instead of diesel-powered generators, to the maximum amount feasible. • Equip heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or better diesel engines, except where Tier 4 Interim or better engines are not available for specific construction equipment. Contra Costa County shall verify and approve all pieces within the construction fleet that would not meet Tier 4 Interim standards. At a minimum, Tier 3 engines will be required if Tier 4 engines are not available. • All conditions of approval/mitigations shall be placed on construction drawings and part of any construction contract. Physical copies of the plans shall be available at the on-site job trailer. 7 MM-AQ-4: For non-aviation uses, a health risk assessment of long-term operations shall be prepared if the proposed facility is within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors and would result in any of the following: • Accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, or • Accommodate more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or • Where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week. Results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than- significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: • Idling of diesel equipment of any type shall be strictly prohibited at the premises. The property owner/tenant/lessee shall inform all business partners, visitors, etc., of the Zero-Idling Rule in effect for the subject property and area streets. Highly visible signs prohibiting idling shall be posted at each entrance and exits. Violators of this zero-idling rule are subject to fines and or criminal charges. • Within 90 days of occupying the space, the facility operator shall submit to the Airports Division and the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) the first of an annual inventory of all equipment that generates criteria pollutant, TACs, and GHG emissions operated at the subject location throughout the life of the project up to year 2035. The equipment inventory shall include the year, make, and model of the equipment that was used in the previous year, including annual hours of operation for each piece of equipment, including but not limited to heavy-duty drayage and non-drayage trucks, yard equipment, bulk material handling equipment (forklifts, etc.), and any other type of material handling equipment. The purpose of the inventory is to track emissions/equipment and to assist in technology reviews. • The facility operator shall purchase/lease or otherwise acquire zero-emission vehicles/equipment (including: light/heavy duty trucks, drayage equipment, forklifts, and generators) when commercially available as the attrition of gasoline/diesel equipment occurs. The property owner/tenant/lessee is encouraged to utilize any and all funding opportunities offered by CARB and other available programs. The availability of zero-emission equipment shall be determined in a joint effort between the Airports Division and the facility operator as part of an annual technology review. • The facility operator shall adhere to the findings of the annual technologies review for reducing air emissions as part of the County Climate Action Plan and long-range sustainability goals, which encourage property owners and 8 tenants to use cleaner technologies over time as they become available. A priority goal of the review will be the replacement of older equipment in operation at the subject site that generates the highest levels of criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions. The equipment to be replaced will be determined based on the level of emissions and cost-effectiveness of the emissions reduction (e.g., biggest reduction per dollar), and identify implementation mechanisms including, but not limited to, tenant-based improvements, grant programs, or a combination thereof, based on regulatory requirements and the feasibility analysis performed by the Airports Division. The Carl Moyer Program, or similar cost-effectiveness criteria, shall be used to assess the economic feasibility (e.g., cost effectiveness) of the identified new technologies. Zero-emission equipment employed pursuant to this mitigation may be replaced by other technologies or other types of equipment as long as the replacement equipment achieves the same or greater criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emission reductions as compared to the equipment identified as part of the technology review. • Every California based TRU and electronic-TRU (E-TRU) operational at the site must be registered with the Air Resource Board Equipment Registration and shall be labeled with a CARB Identification Number. Business operations handling TRUs shall install charging infrastructure and encourage E-TRUs on site, and require those non-E-TRUs to plug in while stationary at the facility. • Prior to occupancy the facility operator shall demonstrate compliance with all newly adopted Ordinances/Statutes/Plans and requirements passed by all responsible agencies in relation to traffic, diesel emissions and air quality improvement measures. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential air quality impact (Impact 3.2-4) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale Emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) may adversely affect sensitive residential receptors. The impact is based on the type and amount of emissions, and the proximity and exposure of the sensitive receptors. The proposed mitigation measures would assess the construction and operation of future developments under the project, and require emission reductions to a level that is 9 considered a less-than-significant health risk by the BAAQMD and the State of California. As described in the mitigation measures, feasible methods are available to reduce TAC exposure. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Biological Resources Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Impact 3.3-1). Three special-status wildlife species were detected during the surveys conducted for the project site, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.3. These species include loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, and tricolored blackbird. Several other special-status species have the potential to utilize the project site for nesting, foraging, cover and/or local migration routes. Although the study area has few mature trees, the project site and adjacent lands have potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and several common raptor species found in California, such as northern harrier and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and common passerine species such as western meadowlark. Increased noise, light, and vibration associated with construction activities could negatively affect nesting success if such activities occur during the nesting season. Annual grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting habitat for Burrowing owl. Ground- disturbing activities in grassland habitat has potential to cause direct impacts to suitable nesting and upland refuge habitat for burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. While no special status plants were identified within the project area, there are nine species with potential to occur in the project area. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1: a. Swainson’s Hawk Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15–September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below). During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a 10 smaller buffer could be used, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent can apply to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non- native trees, lost to covered activities shall be mitigated by planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according. Preference shall be to provide on-site mitigation if feasible. Planting of replacement trees must be reviewed by the Airports Division for compatibility with airport operations. The project proponent shall either pay the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Habitat Conservancy) an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Preserve System for every tree lost, or the project proponent shall plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Habitat Conservancy and per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP. b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Nesting Bird Avoidance. As part of the pre- construction survey for Swainson’s Hawk, the qualified biologist approved by Contra Costa County shall also survey for native nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer from the nests shall be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and planned construction activity. Consultation with CDFW may be required to determine appropriate buffer distances. These nests shall be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist. Any habitat (i.e., trees and brush) would be removed outside of the breeding bird season. MM-BIO-2: Western Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. In accordance with Conditions on Covered Activities described in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California 11 Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in grassland areas identified as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (CDFG 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1–August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the project proponent shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1– January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. 12 If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (CDFG 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. MM-BIO-3: California Red-Legged Frog Avoidance. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including, photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-4: California Tiger Salamander Minimization. Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity, including photos and breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California tiger salamanders 13 within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individual California tiger salamanders within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-5: Rare Plant Surveys and Mitigation. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct protocol-level special-status plant surveys of the undisturbed areas of the project site for alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), spiny-sepaled button- celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), diamond-petaled poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). As part of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) application for coverage, the surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming periods. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the plant species in the region. These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with 2009 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey protocols. If any special-status plant species are observed during surveys, the project proponent shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity (i.e., East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy) of the construction schedule so as to allow the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity the option to salvage the population(s) in accordance with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 3.10 (Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable) described below. Additionally, the project proponent shall confirm with the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity that the take limits of the HCP/NCCP for the species identified have not been reached. The following special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site are covered by the HCP/NCCP: brittlescale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, and 14 recurved larkspur. Alkali milk-vetch, diamond-petaled poppy, and Contra Costa goldfields are analyzed in the HCP/NCCP but are “no take” species, and avoidance is the only acceptable mitigation measure. Congdon’s tarplant and spiny-sepaled button-celery are not addressed in the HCP/NCCP. For these plants, mitigation shall consist of, in order of preference, (1) avoidance, (2) salvage and transplant as described below, or (3) off-site habitat enhancement or restoration in consultation with CDFW. Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable (Covered Species) Perennial Covered Plants Where impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by approved covered activities, the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity has the option of salvaging the covered plants. Salvage methods for perennial species shall be tested for whole individuals, cuttings, and seeds. Salvage measures shall include the evaluation of techniques for transplanting as well as germinating seed in garden or greenhouse and then transplanting to suitable habitat sites in the field. Techniques shall be tested for each species, and appropriate methods shall be identified through research and adaptive management. Where plants are transplanted or seeds distributed to the field they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. Field trials shall be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different methods and determine the best methods to establish new populations. New populations shall be located such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting within the preserves shall only minimally disturb existing native vegetation and soils. Supplemental watering may be provided as necessary to increase the chances of successful establishment, but must be removed following initial population establishment. See also All Covered Plants, below. Annual Covered Plants For annual covered plants, mature seeds shall be collected from all individuals for which impacts cannot be avoided (or if the population is large, a representative sample of individuals). If storage is necessary, seed storage studies shall be conducted to determine the best storage techniques for each species. If needed, studies shall be conducted on seed germinated and plants grown to maturity in 15 garden or greenhouse to propagate larger numbers of seed. Seed propagation methods shall ensure that genetic variation is not substantially affected by propagation (i.e., selection for plants best adapted to cultivated conditions). Field studies shall be conducted through the Adaptive Management Program to determine the efficacy and best approach to dispersal of seed into suitable habitat. Where seeds are distributed to the field, they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. If seed collection methods fail (e.g., due to excessive seed predation by insects), alternative propagation techniques shall be necessary. See also All Covered Plants, below. All Covered Plants All salvage operations shall be conducted by the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity. To ensure enough time to plan salvage operations, project proponents shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity of their schedule for removing the covered plant population. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity may conduct investigations into the efficacy of salvaging seeds from the soil seed bank for both perennial and annual species. The soil seed bank may add to the genetic variability of the population. Covered species may be separated from the soil though garden/greenhouse germination or other appropriate means. Topsoil taken from impact sites shall not be distributed into preserves because of the risk of spreading new non-native and invasive plants to preserves. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity will transplant new populations such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting or seeding “receptor” sites (i.e., habitat suitable for establishing a new population) should be carefully selected on the basis of physical, biological, and logistical considerations (Fiedler and Laven 1996); some examples of these are listed below: • Historic range of the species. • Soil type. • Soil moisture. • Topographic position, including slope and aspect. • Site hydrology. • Mycorrhizal associates (this may be important for Mount Diablo manzanita). • Presence or absence of typical associated plant species. • Presence or absence of herbivores or plant competitors. 16 • Site accessibility for establishment, monitoring, and protection from trampling by cattle or trail users. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential biological resource impact (Impact 3.3-1) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale While only three special status wildlife species, and no special status plants, were detected in the project area, there is potential habitat on or directly adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed mitigation measures would require pre-construction surveys. If species are detected, avoidance measures and monitoring would be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to special-status wildlife. For nesting Swainson’s hawk, mitigation may include replacement of nesting trees. For burrowing owls, if occupied burrows cannot be avoided, passive relocation (exclusion) may be utilized outside of the breeding season. For California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander, individuals may be translocated in coordination with USFWS and CDFW. Mitigation for special status plants includes avoidance and replanting protocols. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Impact 3.3-2). Most areas directly adjacent to the existing airport and to the north and east of the existing runways consist of non-native annual grassland. Sensitive vegetation communities, including wetlands and alkali grasslands, occur within the project site and, under the HCP/NCCP, would require either avoidance or other mitigation. Sensitive resources and habitats include vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, alkali wetlands, and drainages, all of which are potentially jurisdictional features regulated by CDFW, USFWS, and ACOE. Construction of the proposed project could result in direct habitat destruction or modification, which is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-6: a. Wetlands and Waters of the United States or State. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County (County) shall retain 17 a qualified biologist or wetland scientist to prepare a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to determine the extent of potentially jurisdictional features within the project disturbance area. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States or waters of the state shall require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the form of a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the form of a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such permits typically include measures to avoid and minimize or mitigate impacts. Where avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands or waters is not feasible, replacement of resources is required in the form of restoration or creation. The project shall seek coverage under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) for impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands. If neither avoidance nor coverage under the HCP/NCCP is feasible, the County shall comply with the requirements of the 404 permit coverage for on- or off-site mitigation, at a replacement ration of no less than 1:1. b. Brushy Creek Setback. Per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP and Contra Costa County General Plan policy, a development setback of 75 feet from Brushy Creek (measured from top of bank) is required. Note that a lesser setback (for an area less than 300 linear feet) may be approved in consultation with the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-7: Alkali Grassland Avoidance and Mitigation. A portion of the aviation development area, adjacent to the existing facilities, includes alkali grassland. Ultimate development of this site shall require either avoidance, or establishment of like alkali grassland outside of the development area, which shall be made under consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Because this area is relatively disturbed, is isolated from similar habitat, and is maintained on an on-going basis by airport staff, it does not represent an exemplary patch of alkali grassland. Mitigation ratios for impacts to alkali grassland will be determined in consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-8: San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines. 18 Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below shall be implemented. • If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. • Unoccupied dens should be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. • If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. • If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking 19 and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. MM-BIO-9: East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Covered Shrimp Preconstruction Survey, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having suitable shrimp habitat. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of covered shrimp and/or habitat features and evaluate use by listed shrimp in accordance with modified USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1996a). Project proponents are required to conduct USFWS protocol surveys in 1 year (rather than 2) to determine presence or absence of listed shrimp species. If covered shrimp are absent from the site, there are no further requirements related to covered shrimp. If covered shrimp are present, the following avoidance and minimization and construction monitoring measures are required. • To the maximum extent practicable, impacts on occupied habitat of covered shrimp shall be avoided by implementing the following measures based on existing mitigation standards (USFWS 1996b). • If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, establish a buffer (described below) from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp. Alternatively, at the request of the project proponent, representatives of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and USFWS may conduct site visits to inspect the particular characteristics of specific project sites and may approve reductions of the buffer. Buffer reductions may be approved for all or portions of the site whenever reduced setbacks will maintain the hydrology of the seasonal wetland and achieve the same or greater habitat values as would be achieved by the original buffer. • Activities inconsistent with the maintenance of seasonal wetlands within the buffers and disturbance of the on-site watershed shall be prohibited. Inconsistent activities include altering existing topography; placing new structures within the buffers; dumping, burning, and/or burying garbage or any other wastes or fill materials; building new roads or trails; removing or disturbing existing native vegetation; installing storm drains; and using pesticides or other toxic chemicals. • Filling of seasonal wetlands, if unavoidable, shall be delayed until pools are dry and samples from the top 4 inches of wetland soils are collected. Soil collection will shall be sufficient to include a representative sample of plant and animal life present in the wetland by incorporating seeds, cysts, eggs, spores, and similar inocula. The amount of soil collected shall be determined by the size of 20 the wetland filled and the variation in physical and biological conditions within the wetland. The number and size of samples shall be sufficient to capture this variation. For very small wetlands it may be most cost effective to simply collect all topsoil. These samples shall be provided to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy so that the soil can be translocated to suitable habitat within the inventory area unoccupied by covered shrimp or used to inoculate newly created seasonal wetlands on preserve lands. • Seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp that are filled shall be offset by preserving or acquiring seasonal wetlands occupied by the covered shrimp species and restoring habitat suitable for the covered shrimp species in accordance with Conservation Measure 3.8. Such mitigation shall supersede requirements for mitigation of impacts on wetland habitat when covered species are present. If suitable habitat for covered shrimp shall be retained on site, project proponents shall establish a buffer from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied (or assumed to be occupied) by covered shrimp. This buffer zone shall be determined in the field by the biologists as the immediate watershed feeding the seasonal wetland or a minimum of 50 feet, whichever is greater. Buffers shall be marked by brightly colored fencing or flagging throughout the construction process. Activities shall be prohibited within this buffer in accordance with the minimization measure above. Construction personnel shall be trained to avoid affecting shrimp. A qualified biologist approved by USFWS shall inform all construction personnel about the life history of covered shrimp, the importance of avoiding their habitat, and the terms and conditions of the Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan related to avoiding and minimizing impacts on covered shrimp Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential biological resource impact (Impact 3.3-2) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 21 Rationale The proposed mitigation measures would require that a wetlands delineation is performed and avoidance buffers around potentially jurisdictional resources are established prior to construction, and also implements a setback from Brushy Creek. Mitigation measures would also require that alkali grassland on site is avoided and would reduce impacts to sensitive natural communities. Surveys for San Joaquin kit fox would be required and, if detected, avoidance measures and monitoring would be implemented. If wetlands containing covered shrimp species, including longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, cannot be avoided, samples of wetland soils provided to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for translocation. In addition, compensation for wetlands habitat would be provided, either on or off-site. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Impact 3.3-3). Potential impacts from the project could occur through the construction of the proposed project involving the removal, filing, and/or hydrological interruption of protected wetlands. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential biological resource impact (Impact 3.3-3) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale The proposed mitigation measures require a detailed jurisdictional delineation to be performed by a qualified biologist or wetland scientist prior to project development activities. If jurisdictional features would be impacted by the project, authorization from the resource agencies listed above would be required in the form of wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement respectively). Required compensatory 22 mitigation would provide no net loss of jurisdictional habitats. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Cultural Resources Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Impact 3.4-1). Due to the presence of cultural resources within the eastern portion of the project site, it is possible that historical resources would inadvertently be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1: Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Prior to commencement of any construction activities involving ground disturbance, Contra Costa County, a qualified archaeologist, representatives from interested Native American Tribes, and the construction contractor shall be invited to meet or otherwise discuss by conference call the project site’s archaeological sensitivity and determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. Given the present disturbed condition in some locations surrounding existing airport facilities, areas of elevated potential for encountering unanticipated resources should be considered those within 500 feet of the historic-era corral and Brushy Creek, and no deeper than 4 feet below the present ground surface. An archaeological monitor and a monitor from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in these areas, after which the monitoring frequency shall be reduced to periodic spot-checks elsewhere. The monitoring strategy shall be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) based on the results of monitoring within areas of elevated archaeological sensitivity and as recommended by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed, work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted or directed to another location until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. If the resources are determined to be historical resources or unique (pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), the qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations prioritizing resource avoidance, or, where avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential cultural resource impact (Impact 3.4-1) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors 23 finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale No identified historic resources would be affected by the project. However, the project site includes areas of cultural sensitivity, which results in potential for accidental discovery of previously unidentified resources. The proposed mitigation measure requires a qualified archaeologist determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. An archaeological monitor shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in sensitive areas and if resources are found, work shall be halted and the historic significance of the find evaluated. If the resource is determined to be historically significant, avoidance measures would be implemented or, if avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Impact 3.4-2). The Cultural Resources Inventory Report performed for the project suggests that there is moderate potential for inadvertent discovery of intact cultural deposits during earth moving activities. Because of this, the project would have a potentially significant impact on archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential cultural resource impact (Impact 3.4-2) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale No identified significant archaeological resources would be affected by the project. However, the project site includes areas of cultural sensitivity, which results in potential for accidental discovery of previously unidentified resources. The proposed mitigation measure requires a qualified archaeologist determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may 24 be uncovered during construction. An archaeological monitor shall be present for initial ground- disturbing work in sensitive areas and if resources are found, work shall be halted and the cultural significance of the find evaluated. If the resource is determined to be significant, avoidance measures would be implemented or, if avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. Disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Impact 3.4-3). It is possible that human remains would inadvertently be discovered during construction. Disturbance of previously unidentified human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), in the event of the discovery of human remains, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the Contra Costa County (County) Coroner/Sheriff shall be immediately notified. The County Coroner/Sheriff shall determine if an investigation is necessary. If the remains are determined to be Native American: 1. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. 2. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. 3. The MLD shall have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the County for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential cultural resource impact (Impact 3.4-3) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 25 Rationale While no sites containing human remains have been identified, accidental discovery of human remains is a potential impact of project construction. The proposed mitigation measure requires that in the event of the discovery of human remains that construction be suspended and the County and NAHC be notified to determine appropriate treatment. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.. (Impact 3.4-4). One prehistoric resource has been previously located on the project site. The presence of this resource and the proximity of Byron Hot Springs to the project site indicates there is the potential to inadvertently encounter tribal cultural resources during construction. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3: Should a potential tribal cultural resource (TCR) be inadvertently encountered, construction activities within 100 feet of the TCR shall be halted and Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (Department) notified. The Department shall notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. Any affected tribe shall be provided a reasonable period of time to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCR. Depending on the nature of the potential resource and tribal recommendations, review by a qualified archaeologist may be required. Implementation of proposed recommendations shall be made based on the determination of the County that the approach is reasonable and feasible. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. MM-CUL-4: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The County shall require the contractor to provide a cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be developed in coordination with an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, as well as culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The County will invite Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American 26 tribes to participate. The WEAP shall be conducted before any ground-disturbing construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP shall include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and shall outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP shall emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and shall discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential cultural resource impact (Impact 3.4-4) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale No tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project development areas. However, the project site includes areas of cultural sensitivity, which results in potential for accidental discovery of previously unidentified resources. The County notified California Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area, per Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill 18. A request for consultation was received from Wilton Rancheria on August 30, 2017. The County responded within the required 30-day period on September 7, 2017, and again on February 22, 2018, but no response was received from the tribe. During the public comment period for the Draft EIR, an additional consultation request letter was received by the County from the Wilton Rancheria on July 14, 2021. The County re-opened consultation on September 22, 2021. Although no tribal cultural resources were identified within the project site, minor modifications were made to the mitigation measures addressing accidental discovery of tribal cultural resources. Consultation was again closed on January 21, 2022. The proposed mitigation measures, as revised through the AB 52 consultation process, require that in the event of the discovery of potential tribal cultural resources that construction be halted and the County, NAHC, and Native American tribes be notified to determine if further investigation is 27 required. The mitigation measures also require that workers operating within the project area receive environmental awareness training on identification of potential resources and procedures if a potential resource is discovered. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the potential impact would be mitigated to less than significant. Geology, Soils, and Minerals The project would be located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (Impact 3.5-4). The Quaternary Alluvium underlying the project site possesses the potential for expansive clays. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by placing building slabs on select, granular fill and by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned slabs. The project could be subject to substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1: Prior to the approval of any building or improvement plans, a geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil or geotechnical engineer and submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development. The report shall address the specific approach to development. This report shall: (A) provide specific criteria and standards for identifying suitable imported fill materials; (B) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for the import fill materials; (B) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for testing of soils on rough-graded pads and providing design measures to avoid/control damage to foundations and buried utilities; (C) provide criteria for placement of engineered fill; (D) provide further evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation; (E) provide detailed evaluation of the compressibility of the alluvial soils and forecast the anticipated amount of total settlement and timing of settlement to occur or placing a surcharge on the site to speed settlement; (F) provide California Building Code seismic parameters; and (G) outline recommendations for geotechnical observation and testing services during site preparation-, grading-and foundation- related work. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential geological impact (Impact 3.5-4) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 28 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale The proposed mitigation measure requires the preparation of a geotechnical report specific to project development that would include recommendations on foundation designs and provide recommendation to prevent damage from expansive soils. These recommendations would be incorporated into the project design prior to the approval of building or improvement plans. The geotechnical study would be required to comply with applicable building codes and engineering standards, including any applicable amendments to the CBC contained in the County’s municipal code. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. The project may have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Impact 3.5-6). The project site is currently serviced by a 3,000-gallon septic tank and lift station that pumps to a leach field. Under proposed project conditions, one or a combination of the following scenarios may occur: the existing septic tank would be expanded to support the additional development areas on the project site, the existing septic system would be converted to a package wastewater treatment plant, and/or the project site would connect to the Byron Sanitary District system. The underlying soils possess expansive potential, which pose a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential geological impact (Impact 3.5-5) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale A septic system is currently operating onsite. However, potential soil limitations could affect the operation of new or expanded facilities. The proposed mitigation measure requires the preparation of a geotechnical report specific to project development that would include recommendations on foundation designs and provide recommendation to prevent damage from expansive soils. These 29 recommendations would be incorporated into the project design prior to the approval of building or improvement plans. The geotechnical study would be required to comply with applicable building codes and engineering standards, including any applicable amendments to the CBC contained in the County’s municipal code. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Impact 3.5-4). The project site contains sedimentary units with moderate to high paleontological resources sensitivity. Therefore, it is possible that paleontological resources would inadvertently be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-2: If paleontological resources (i.e., fossil bones, teeth, shells, plants, or trace fossils) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large paleontological resources. Depending upon the significance of the find, the qualified paleontologist may simply remove and record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, additional work, such as data recovery and extended specimen removal, may be warranted. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program for the project, which outlines where paleontological monitoring is required based on the location of the discovery, geotechnical reports, and construction plans. The qualified paleontologist shall also be required to curate specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a final written report to the repository and lead agency for review. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, will reduce the potential paleontological impact (Impact 3.5-6) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 30 Rationale While no significant paleontological resources have been identified, the proposed mitigation measure requires that in the event that scientifically important paleontological resources are unearthed during grading activities, a paleontologist should be retained to evaluate the discovery and make a significance determination, and if significant, make recommendations for conservation. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Impact 3.7-2). While there have been no known releases to the subsurface causing contamination (there have been minor releases from drums and a fuel release to the surface that was cleaned up), it is possible that subsurface releases/contamination have occurred in areas of fuel/oil storage and use. Construction activities in these areas could result in encountering contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Exposure of contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment would result in potentially significant impacts. Also, an area in the eastern portion of the project site was used for agriculture from the 1960s until the 1980s. Pesticides may have been used at the project site during this time. Exposure of pesticide-contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment during grading and construction would result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1: Prior to initiation of grading and construction, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be in-place and consist of the following: • Identification of areas of potential fuel- or oil-impacted soils on a site plan. • Protocol for identifying suspected contaminated soils (e.g., discoloring, odor, positive photoionization detector readings), utilizing personnel trained in recognition of contaminated soils/groundwater and certified with respect to Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (i.e., OSHA HAZWOPER training). • Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and to Contra Costa Environmental Health Department and local agencies, as needed. • Procedures for temporary cessation of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern. • Procedures for limiting access to the contaminated area to personnel with OSHA HAZWOPER training. 31 • A worker health and safety plan for excavation of contaminated soil and/or groundwater. • Procedures for characterizing, managing, and disposing of potentially contaminated soils. MM-HAZ-2: Prior to development of the former agricultural areas identified in Figure 3.7-1, Hazards Site Map, soil samples shall be collected and tested for pesticides. Shallow soil samples shall be collected from the upper 0.5 to –1.0 foot of ground surface from the site soils and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081A and arsenic by EPA Method 6010B. The soil samples shall be analyzed by a California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified laboratory. The pesticide sampling data shall be compared to applicable regulatory threshold levels such as the EPA Regional Screening Levels and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office Note 3 screening levels. The arsenic sampling data shall be compared to California typical background levels, such as those in the 1996 Kearney Foundation Special Report on Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. If the soil sampling concentrations, using the 95% upper confidence level or other statistical evaluation, exceed the screening level, mitigation shall include removal of impacted soil for off-site disposal prior to or during construction grading. A soil management plan, including a health and safety plan, shall be prepared to properly manage the excavated soil and protect worker and public health and safety. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential hazards impact (Impact 3.7-2) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale While there have been no known releases to the subsurface causing contamination, it is possible that unidentified contamination is present due to the historical activities of the site. The proposed mitigation measures require the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan and soil sampling, analysis, and potential remediation of soils in the identified former agricultural area. These measures would protect on-site workers and visitors and would require adequate clean-up 32 based on the proposed uses. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The project has the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (c)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows (Impact 3.8-3). The project would involve substantial increases in the amount of impervious surfaces, which has the potential to substantially increase the rate and volume of storm runoff during peak storm events without adequate measures to detain, retain, or slow the increased flows. Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1: Hydrology and Drainage Study. Prior to approval of individual development plans, a Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be prepared for the project to refine the size and hydrologic characteristics of drainage areas that intersect the project site, to estimate pre- and post-project flow rates and volumes under 10- 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events, and to provide recommendations for needed improvements. The Hydrology and Drainage Study shall quantify the capacity of the existing detention basin; determine whether or not it will be sufficient to serve future land uses; and establish the hydrology performance criteria and design standards applicable to potential future tenants, based on the destination of runoff (i.e., detention basin or Bushy Creek) and the degree of impervious surface coverage. The study shall be consistent with the hydrology performance criteria and design standards contained within the Contra Costa County Drainage Ordinance (Division 914), which include but are not limited to: • Drainage facilities shall be designed to convey a minimum (with sufficient freeboard) of the runoff produced by a) a 10-year storm event for facilities draining an area of less than 1 square mile, b) a 25-year storm event for facilities draining an area of between 1 and 4 square miles, and c) a 50-year storm event (and 100-year event without freeboard) for facilities draining an area of more than 4 square mile. • Finished floors shall be elevated above the base flood elevation of the one- hundred-year frequency storm runoff, as determined using the maximum potential development of the drainage basin or watershed shall. 33 • Storm flows shall be collected and conveyed in a manner that avoids damage to any improvement, building site or dwelling which may be constructed as part of the project. • Detention basins shall be sized to contain without freeboard a one-hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff, unless it can be shown that a one- hundred- year average recurrence interval runoff can be safely passed through the detention basin without damage to the detention basin or any other property. • Drainage capacity shall be provided that accounts for the full build-out of uses anticipated with the drainage area. The study shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (Flood Control District) for review and approval prior to finalizing individual development plans. In addition, the Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff to ensure any drainage basins proposed are consistent with Federal Aviation Administration aviation obstruction standards for avian attractants (e.g., requirement to drain ponded water within 48 hours of a major storm event). MM-HYD-2: Drainage Protection and Flood Control. For all areas of the project within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA]), Contra Costa County shall ensure that development proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 82-28), Contra Costa County Flood Control Ordinance, and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Development proposals in this area shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review and approval, and all requirements imposed by the department shall be satisfied. Such requirements may include floodproofing measures (such as elevating structures above the base flood elevation and providing the required freeboard). In the event development proposals involve encroachment onto or undergrounding of Brushy Creek, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained, per MM-BIO-6, and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department shall be provided with drainage studies and engineering reports sufficient to demonstrate that flood flows on Brushy Creek would not be impeded or redirected. For all development planned within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, subject to approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the developer would be required to file a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to process the change and shall obtain a FEMA modification of the SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 34 Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential hydrological impact (Impact 3.8-3) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require the preparation of a drainage and hydrology study to evaluate the difference between pre- and post-project storm flows, and establish drainage designs necessary to mitigate the increase and adequately collect and convey flood flows. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the capacity of the detention basin is adequate to accommodate the project. Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would require compliance with existing floodplain management regulations, studies to determine and demonstrate the capacity of the creek corridor would be maintained, coordination with FEMA if the depth or boundaries of the floodplain would be changed as a result, and review and approval by the County Public Works Department. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Utilities Result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Impact 3.14-1). The proposed project’s utility requirements would exceed the capacity of existing water and wastewater facilities, which would have a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM-UTIL-1: Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses, or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that would increase water demand in excess of the current airport well system, Contra Costa County (County) shall take one of the following actions: a. Construct additional on-airport wells and water treatment facilities to support the proposed development. The project Water Supply Assessment estimates that up to four wells may be required to support buildout of the development program. The County shall obtain a water supply permit from the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water, a well drilling permit 35 from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division, and all other applicable permits and approvals prior to development. b. Obtain an off-site potable water supply from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District or the Town of Discovery Bay. The County shall not permit development to proceed until the appropriate agreements or will-serve letters have been obtained from the chosen supplier(s) and plans for construction of necessary transmission lines have been approved by the County. MM-UTIL-2: Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that involve additional human occupancy, Contra Costa County shall take one of the following actions: a. Expand the on-site septic system to accommodate forecasted development wastewater flows. A permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division (CCCEHD) shall be obtained prior to development. b. Construct an on-site package wastewater plant. The plant design, which demonstrates adequate capacity for the development program, must be approved by the CCCEHD. Prior to approval of development, Water Discharge Requirements (WDR) must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. c. Obtain service from the Town of Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District. The County must confirm with the provider that there is adequate service capacity, and obtain a will serve letter for airport development. Plans for construction of a sewer transmission line to the off-site provider must be approved by all responsible County agencies. MM-HYD-1: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential project impact on utilities (Impact 3.14-1) to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale Implementation of MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-2 would require construction of water and wastewater facilities and limit project development until adequate capacity is available. Implementation of MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-2, which require construction of additional on- site and/or off-site infrastructure, may result in secondary impacts to the environment. These 36 secondary effects would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-BIO- 1, MM-BIO-6, MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, MM-CUL-3, and MM-NOI-1. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measures, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources (Impact 3.14-2). Currently, the well serving the airport property is insufficient to serve additional project development. According to the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed project, at the programmatic level of analysis, sufficient water supplies are available to serve its water demand under normal and dry conditions, including existing and planned land uses, over the 20-year projection period. Because a definitive source of water has not yet been identified, and additional facilities would be required to serve the project, this impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM-UTIL-1: see above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impact on utilities (Impact 3.14-2) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale As development under the proposed project proceeds, each of the potential supplies considered would require additional feasibility analysis to determine the actual potential for project implementation, and would require appropriate permits (e.g. new/expanded well construction) or agreements (e.g., will-serve letter) from the off-site suppliers before any development requiring potable water could be permitted. Additional infrastructure to serve the project site would be constructed consistent with the water supply ultimately selected. This process is incorporated into MM-UTIL-1. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Exceed the current wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (Impact 3.14-3). The project site is not currently served by a wastewater treatment provider. The airport is currently served by a septic system which does not have capacity for the proposed project. 37 Mitigation Measure MM-UTIL-2: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the potential impact on utilities (Impact 3.14-3) of the project to a less-than-significant level, and is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors finds, that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Rationale Through the implementation of MM-UTIL-2, and subsequently applicable biological, cultural resource, and noise mitigation measures, the proposed project would not cause significant environmental effects due to construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. With implementation of the above discussed mitigation measure, the potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The County finds that for the following impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible for the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below, the County has determined that overriding considerations, including economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with the project. Air Quality Conflict or obstruction with the implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Impact 3.2- 1). The project would lead to a substantial increase in operational emissions of NO x and PM 10, and therefore potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2: The project shall implement the following measures for all facilities in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. To the extent that 38 the measures below are addressed by MM-AQ-4 as part of any health risk assessment that is prepared, the measures in MM-AQ-4 shall take precedence. • Only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the project site. • Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. • Prior to tenant occupancy, the facility operator shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. • The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24 shall be provided. In addition, the buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future. • Conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the facility operator during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that despite implementation of the feasible mitigation measure, described above, the project would conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and Impact 3.2- 1 would be significant and unavoidable. Rationale The significant impact is primarily caused by NO x and PM 10 emissions from mobile emissions, particularly trucks to serve the proposed light industrial and warehouse uses. The County has required all feasible emission controls within their jurisdiction. However, due to the need to account for long haul trucking to serve future project development, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. 39 Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (Impact 3.2-2). Project-related emissions of NO x and PM 10 , primarily from mobile sources, would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. As such, the project would have a potentially significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1: The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: • 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 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, 13 CCR 2485). 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 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 lead agency 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. MM-AQ-2: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that despite implementation of the feasible mitigation measures, described above, the project would lead to long-term impacts associated with a 40 cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non- attainment; therefore, the County Board of Supervisors finds that Impact 3.2-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Impact 3.6-1). Because the project would not meet the applicable Climate Action Plan (CAP) consistency checklist criteria, it would be considered inconsistent with the County’s CAP without mitigation. As such, the project would have a potentially significant impact on climate change. Mitigation Measures MM-GHG-1: The individual development projects shall include the following transit-oriented and alternative transportation development design features to reduce the use of single-occupancy fossil fueled vehicles and vehicle miles traveled: • Provide preferred parking for zero/low emission vehicles. Bicycle parking and only the minimum amount of auto parking shall be provided to encourage alternative forms of travel. • Install conduits from the building(s) to the parking lot(s), to allow for installation of EV charging stations for vehicles. The proportion of EV parking spaces shall comply with the applicable CALGreen standards. • The proposed project shall promote ridesharing programs through a multifaceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles; designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles; or providing a website or message board for coordinating rides. • The proposed project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip-reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip- reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy would result in lower vehicle miles traveled reductions. Marketing strategies may include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options; event promotions; or publications. MM-GHG-2: The individual development projects shall include the following design features to reduce the demand for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions: • Obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for building construction, where feasible. 41 • Provide the maximum amount of skylights to reduce electricity use associated with interior lighting. • All facility lighting shall meet or exceed the applicable Title 24 requirements. • All installed appliances (e.g., washer/dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers) shall be Energy Star rated or equivalent. • Design proposed buildings with: o Roof structure with additional load (defined as 1 to 2 pounds per square foot) capacity to allow the future installation of solar panels without retrofitting. The installation of solar panels would comply with the policy and procedures set forth in the Interim Policy for FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports (78 FR 63276). o Installation of an above market sized electrical infrastructure system (larger electrical room for future expansion, underground conduits (car, truck and loading dock) for future electrical charging systems, as well as additional conduits into the grid system for future expand-ability. MM-GHG-3: The individual development projects shall incorporate the following design features to conserve water: • Install low flow plumbing fixtures, such as faucets, toilets, and showers. • Utilize water efficient landscaping to reduce the usage of outdoor water on the premises. • Construct dual plumbing for both potable and recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation, unless determined infeasible by Department of Conservation and Development, Current Planning Division. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that despite implementation of the feasible mitigation measures, described above, the project would not comply with the County CAP and the cumulative GHG impact would remain; therefore, the County Board of Supervisors finds that Impact 3.6-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Rationale The primary source of project GHG emissions are mobile (truck trips associated with light industrial and warehouse uses). As discussed in Air Quality, above, the County is limited in its ability to enforce additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions from long haul trucking. The GHG significance finding is based on consistency with the County CAP. With implementation of mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the CAP checklist items EE 1 (high efficiency appliances and insulation), RE 1 (solar ready), and LUT 2 (EV 42 charging stations). However, based on the rural location of Byron Airport, the project would not comply with LUT 4 (located within one half-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit or Amtrak station or within one quarter-mile of a bus station). Therefore, the project GHG impact cannot be reduced to less than significant. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Impact 3.6-2). The project would not be consistent with the County’s CAP, which is considered a qualified GHG reduction plan pursuant to CEQA, and established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the project would also be considered inconsistent with implementation of any of the above-described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. As such, the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM-GHG-1: See above. MM-GHG-2: See above. MM-GHG-3: See above. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that despite implementation of the feasible mitigation measures, described above, the project would not comply with the County CAP and the cumulative GHG impact would remain; therefore, the County Board of Supervisors finds that Impact 3.6-2 would be significant and unavoidable. Rationale The primary source of project GHG emissions are mobile (truck trips associated with light industrial and warehouse uses). As discussed in Air Quality, above, the County is limited in its ability to enforce additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions from long haul trucking. The GHG significance finding is based on consistency with the County CAP. With implementation of mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the CAP checklist items EE 1 (high efficiency appliances and insulation), RE 1 (solar ready), and LUT 2 (EV charging stations). However, based on the rural location of Byron Airport, the project would not comply with LUT 4 (located within one half-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit or Amtrak station or within one quarter-mile of a bus station). Therefore, the project GHG impact cannot be reduced to less than significant. 43 Noise Generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area in excess of standards established in the local general (Impact 3.10-1). Project operations would result in substantial traffic-related increases in outdoor ambient noise levels at three residential locations. This impact would be potentially significant. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that Impact 3.10-1 would be significant and unavoidable, and that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Residential uses (sensitive receptors) would be exposed to significant traffic noise due to the project. Rationale Project operations would result in substantial traffic-related increases in outdoor ambient noise levels at three residential locations. Noise walls in the vicinity of the impacted sensitive receptors could potentially reduce noise impacts to these receptors. However, such noise walls are infeasible for the following reasons: inadequate public right-of-way that may require acquiring private property to construct; access to the properties would require gaps in the noise walls that would reduce their effectiveness; the noise walls would introduce potentially significant visual impacts into the area which would particularly impact residents. Therefore, this impact cannot be reduced to less than significant. Transportation The project would potentially conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) (Impact 3.13-2). The project would have a potentially significant impact on VMT. Because the Countywide VMT would increase with the proposed project relative to the total VMT generated by the County under year 2040 conditions, the project’s cumulative impacts would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures MM-TRAF-1: Project Site Design. The project shall provide site design features that facilitate pedestrian amenities and promote accessibility for on-site pedestrian movement and connectivity to various buildings or project components. As shown Table 3.13- 10, this measure would result in a range of reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-2: Bicycling Facilities. The project shall provide adequate bike parking, change, and shower facilities on-site and improve accessibility for on-site bicycle movement as well as connections to immediate proposed off-site bike lanes along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. As shown in Table 3.13-10, this measure would 44 result in a 0.63% reduction in VMT. Low stress bikeway proposed along Byron Highway can be made accessible to bicyclists from the project if bike routes can be planned along Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. MM-TRAF-3: Access to Transit and Expansion of Transit Network. The project shall provide access to transit and expand transit network. The project should work with Tri Delta Transit to add transit service in the project vicinity and provide connections with the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg and Oakley and other unincorporated areas. As shown Table 3.13-10, this measure was assumed to result in a conservative 0.1% reduction in VMT since there are no known transit service improvement or expansion projects near the project site. However, once transit coverage is increased, this VMT reduction could increase, however it would not reduce the Project’s VMT to a less than significant level. MM-TRAF-4: Ridesharing and Car-Sharing Programs for Employees. The project shall provide/promote/subsidize ride-sharing programs to the employees by utilizing approaches such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading/unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message boards for coordinating rides. Increasing the vehicle occupancy by utilizing ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, thereby decreasing the VMT. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing ridesharing and car-sharing programs to approximately 50% of the employees would result in a 2.5% and 0.4% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-5: Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle. The project shall provide an employer- sponsored vanpool and shuttle for use by employees for commutes to work, and bus/transit station. The vanpool and shuttle will be available to all employees; however, the calculations conservatively assume the program would be offered to/utilized by 50 percent of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing employer-sponsored vanpool/shuttle to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 6.7% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-6: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules for Employees. According to CAPCOA, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules would reduce the number of commute trips, thereby reducing the project’s VMT. Staggered start times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks are examples of alternative work schedules. Because retail and industrial/warehouse operations may require most of the employees to be on-site 24-hours per day, alternative work schedules may be feasible for a majority of the employees. The project shall implement a 4-day/40-hour work schedule for approximately 25% of the employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, with 25% 45 employee participation in an alternate work schedule consisting of a 4-day/40- hour work week, a VMT reduction of 3.75% would result. MM-TRA-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. The marketing strategies would include new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications. Although the marketing would target all employees, a conservative assumption of marketing to only 50 percent of the employees was utilized in the calculation. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing/promoting commute trip reduction marketing to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 2.0% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-8: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program for Employees. The project shall provide subsidized or discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to the employees. Although subsidized or discounted transit program would be available to all employees, the VMT reduction calculation conservatively assumes that the program would be available to and utilized by a maximum of 50% of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing subsidized or discounted transit program to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 1.0% reduction in VMT. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that despite implementation of the feasible mitigation measures, described above, VMT impacts would remain; therefore, the County Board of Supervisors finds that Impact 3.13-2 would be significant and unavoidable. Rationale Mitigation measures have been required that will encourage use of alternative transportation and reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. However, VMT is primarily driven by existing land use patterns. Introducing additional employment uses within a rural area will result in above average (as compared to Bay Area) commute trip lengths. Due to the rural nature of the project vicinity, transit is of limited effectiveness. The introduction of residential (mixed-use) development into the project may reduce VMT but is not feasible, as the project site is an airport and therefore incompatible with residential uses. The project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Impact 13.3- 3). The project has the potential to increase the volume of truck traffic on the roadway network to serve warehousing and light industrial development and existing roads may be inadequate for increased volumes of project-related traffic, including increased truck traffic. 46 Mitigation Measures MM-TRAF-9: Prior to the completion of the first non-aviation development project that would serve heavy trucks, the project proponent shall construct street improvements related to the project site, as follows: • Widen Byron Hot Springs Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8- foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from Byron Highway to Holey Road. • Widen Holey Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8-foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from the Airport property line to Byron Highway. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Armstrong Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. Finding The County Board of Supervisors finds that implementation of feasible mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact of truck traffic on roadways which provide access to the project site. However, the feasibility of improvements to improve vehicle queues at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps is uncertain. Impact 13.3-3 would be significant and unavoidable. Rationale The proposed SR-239 TriLink project would likely reduce this impact to less than significant. However, SR-239 Feasibility Study does not identify specific improvements, nor are specific improvements planned or funded in the area. Therefore, this impact cannot be reduced to less than significant. VII. Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, but need not consider every conceivable 47 alternative. The CEQA Guidelines further state that “the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]). Therefore, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project (or to its location) that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The feasibility of an alternative may be determined based on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site accessibility and control (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]). Alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[a]). Agency decision makers ultimately decide what is “actually feasible.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981 (CNPS).) Under CEQA, “feasible” is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1001; In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166.) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) The EIR discussed and found the following alternative infeasible. • Off-site alternative The EIR analyzes three alternatives: • No Project/Aviation Only • Aviation Expansion • Reduced Density Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Basis for Consideration An EIR alternatives analysis must include the “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). The no project discussion follows 48 one of two lines of analysis: (1) where the project includes a change to a land use plan or policy (including zoning), what kind of development would reasonably be expected to occur under existing plans and considering available infrastructure and services, or (2) if no development would occur (the “no build” alternative), what would the effects be of the project site remaining in its existing state compared to the circumstances if the proposed project were approved. The approved Byron Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (Appendix D to the Airport Master Plan) identify additional aviation development to support the anticipated growth in airport operations. These include aircraft storage, cargo facilities, maintenance and repair, corporate hangars and fixed-base operators, and expanded pilot and passenger facilities (Contra Costa County 2005b, 2016). Aviation uses are consistent with the existing P-1 zoning and the ALUCP for Byron Airport and were evaluated in the 1985 EIR prepared for the siting and development of Byron Airport. Therefore, some level of development should be considered in the “no project” scenario, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. However, existing infrastructure is inadequate to serve even the build-out of the current master planned aviation uses. It is, therefore, assumed that aircraft storage could accommodate the additional 62 based aircraft. Supporting facilities would be limited to 20,000 to 40,000 square feet—the estimated amount of development that could be supported by the septic system based on existing use and capacity (Mead & Hunt 2013). Description It is assumed that based aircraft and operations would increase, consistent with the Airport Master Plan. This alternative assumes that 167 aircraft would be based at the airport within 10 years (compared to the current estimate of 105). Airport storage, including hangars and tie-downs, would be constructed to accommodate additional aircraft. New structures would be limited to 20,000 to 40,000 square feet due to limitations in water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. Development would occur in the aviation area, adjacent to existing airport facilities, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. No development would occur in the non-aviation area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects The No Project/Aviation Only Alternative would avoid all significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. This alternative would include some construction activities and additional facilities, so certain construction-related impacts would be potentially significant, but these would be mitigated through implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified for that project. These measures would be for impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, and hydrology. 49 Findings The No Project/Aviation Only Alternative would, for the most part, achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, as follows: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. However, this alternative would not achieve the objectives related to economic development or financial self-sufficiency. The airport would continue to operate at a deficit under this alternative. Therefore, the County finds this alternative to be infeasible. Alternative 2: Aviation Expansion Alternative Basis for Consideration The Aviation Expansion Alternative is similar to the No Project/Aviation Only Alternative (see above) but assumes that additional infrastructure would be constructed for full build-out of the aviation area. This alternative would reduce significant impacts related to transportation and related health risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Since traffic generation from new development east of the main runway (including vendors, employees, and visitors) would not occur, this alternative is expected to substantially reduce those impacts. Description It is assumed that based aircraft and operations would increase consistent with the Airport Master Plan. A total of 11.8 acres would be dedicated to future airport storage (including hangars and tie- downs). Up to 154,000 square feet of aviation-related buildings would be constructed within an area of 11.8 acres. No development would occur in the airport-related area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects Since no development would occur east of the main runway, the three houses near the airport would not be affected, avoiding impacts related to health risk and noise (due to increased traffic). Transportation impacts would be substantially reduced (because of reduced number of truck traffic, vendors, employees, and visitors). The potentially significant (but mitigatable) aesthetics impact of large structures east of the airport would also be avoided. Associated greenhouse gas emissions would also be substantially reduced. Construction impacts related to expansion of the aviation uses, including impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, and public utilities, would still occur, but would be mitigated by feasible mitigation measures, as described throughout this EIR. 50 Findings The Aviation Expansion Alternative would achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, as follows: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. However, this alternative would not achieve the objectives related to economic development or financial self-sufficiency. The airport would continue to operate at a deficit under this alternative. Therefore, the County finds this alternative to be infeasible. Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Basis for Consideration The Reduced Intensity Alternative is based on the initial development scenario for the proposed project. This scenario did not include an update of the ALUCP, so the intensity of proposed development was constrained. Since several of the significant project impacts are related to the intensity of development, particularly in proximity to residential uses east of the airport, this reduced- intensity alternative provides a useful comparison. This alternative would use the same development footprint as the proposed project, but would not include acquisition of the 11.7-acre parcel. Due to the reduced amount of acreage, and the reduction in allowable floor area ratio (FAR), office and commercial uses would be considered infeasible in this development scenario, and the available non- aviation development area would consist of logistics/warehouse/distribution and light/industry business park uses. Description Based aircraft and operations would increase consistent with the Airport Master Plan because aviation expansion would still occur on the 23.5 acres designated for aviation uses. The development footprint would be similar to the proposed project, but the intensity would be reduced. The floor-to-area ratio of logistics/warehouse/distribution would be reduced to 0.25 (from 0.30 for the proposed project). Office and commercial development would be eliminated under this alternative, and the potential acreage for those uses would be used for logistics/warehouse/distribution and light industry/business park. The 11.7-acre parcel adjacent to the airport-related development would not be acquired. Total building area would be reduced to 723,000 square feet, as opposed to the proposed project amount of 941,000 square feet (see Chapter 4 of the Final EIR for complete description). Total 51 employees and visitors would not exceed 636 at any given time, as opposed to 1,528 for the proposed project. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects Transportation impacts would be reduced by eliminating commercial and office uses. However, truck traffic would be similar to the proposed project, since this alternative could result in 484,000 square feet of warehouse/light industrial uses compared to 487,000 for the proposed project. Traffic impacts would still likely be significant but reduced, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of mitigation required. Associated greenhouse gas emissions would also be reduced, but likely not to a less-than-significant level. Since warehousing and light industrial uses would still be constructed east of the airport, impacts related to health risk would still potentially occur, but could be mitigated. The potentially significant (but mitigatable) aesthetics impact of large structures east of the airport would also be avoided, since warehousing would be less dense and farther from existing homes. Construction impacts related to expansion of the aviation uses, including impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, and public utilities, would still occur, but would be mitigated by feasible mitigation measures described throughout this EIR. Findings The Reduced Intensity Alternative would achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, as follows: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. This alternative would not fully achieve the economic objectives: • Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport- related land uses. • Provide a streamlined planning framework for development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. This alternative would reduce but not fully mitigate the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. In addition, the economic development and fiscal objectives of the County would not be fully realized. For these reasons, the County finds this alternative to be infeasible. VIII. Statement of Overriding Considerations As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the project will result in some significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. There are no feasible alternatives to the project that would fully mitigate or substantially 52 lessen the impacts. Despite these effects, the County, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the project because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable. 1. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Byron Airport is inconsistent with both the current version of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011) and the ALUCP for Buchanan Field Airport. Updating the ALUCP would provide for consistent implementation of development standards throughout the County. This is a benefit both to private landowners and to County planning. 2. The project would provide economic development opportunities in east Contra Costa County. The east County has traditionally had a much higher unemployment rate relative to the County as a whole. For example, in September 2021, the County unemployment rate was 5.5%, while the unemployment rate in the Byron Census Designated Place was 11% (California Economic Development Department, 2021). 3. The project would provide for economic self-sufficiency for Byron Airport. The Airport currently operates a loss. This shortfall is compensated by revenues at Buchanan Field Airport. The proposed project would eliminate a budget deficit that would improve the fiscal health of the County. IX. Conclusion The County Board of Supervisors has balanced these benefits and considerations against the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the project. After balancing the environmental costs against the project’s benefits, the Board concludes that the benefits outweigh the adverse environmental impacts. The Board finds that the project’s benefits outlined above, and each of them individually, override the significant unavoidable environmental costs associated with the project. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (APPLICANT & OWNER) PROJECT FINDINGS A. General Plan Amendment 1. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the County Urban Limit Line. Project Finding: The portion of the project site where development may occur is fully located inside the County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL), and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The Public and Semi-Public (PS) land use designation for Byron Airport, including the General Plan Amendment to the 11.7-acre parcel, is non-urban. All proposed land uses, both aviation-related and non-aviation- related, will be located on land designated PS and within the ULL. 2. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not cause a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C- 1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the County may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non- urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, and public facilities. The existing land use designations for the subject site, Public and Semi-Public (PS) and Agricultural Lands (AL), are non-urban land use designation. Changing the land use designation for 11.7 acres from AL to PS does not change the percentage of land devoted to urban and non-urban uses. 3. Required Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program. Project Finding: The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program (GMP), and related CCTA resolutions. The CCTA GMP Implementation Guide (2021) sets forth procedures for local agency consultation and evaluation of impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments. The Byron Airport Development Program EIR was evaluated according to the CCTA GMP GPA Review Process and Technical Procedures for evaluating transportation impacts. Therefore, the project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related CCTA resolutions. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 2 of 36 4. Required Finding: Following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan will remain internally consistent, as required under Government Code Section 65300.5. Project Finding: The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated areas. Although the proposed GPA involves revising policies to expand the allowed uses at Byron Airport and redesignating the 11.7-acre parcel to PS to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program, the expanded aviation and non-aviation uses are consistent with the PS designation of the land inside the ULL and will support the General Plan goal of operating two airports in the County, among other goals and policies. The two amended policies will also not cause inconsistencies, as they are very specific to Byron Airport and do not affect County policy unrelated to that facility. Therefore, adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. 5. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if such amendment is deemed to be “in the public interest.” The proposed project would help implement General Plan Goal 5-Q, to encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county, by supporting the financial self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The project will support this through economic development around the airport, which will also serve to improve the severe jobs/housing imbalance in East County by adding high-quality employment opportunities at the airport. 6. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not exceed the limit on such amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use and Transportation and Circulation element, both mandatory elements, and is the third consolidated amendment for 2022. B. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: Implementation Measure 4-c under the Growth Management Program (GMP) of the County’s General Plan requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. The project involves a County-initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA), CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 3 of 36 Development Plan Modification (DPM), Rezone, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Amendment for the Byron Airport to expand the range of uses allowed on the airport property. As part of the EIR, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared. The Draft EIR identified several impacts and mitigation measure based primarily on the results of the TIA. The project has the potential to increase the volume of truck traffic on the roadway network to serve warehousing and light industrial development. Although regional roadways, such as Byron Highway and SR-4, already safely handle significant volumes of truck traffic, the rural roads providing access to Byron Airport may not support the increase in truck traffic. Existing traffic volumes can be handled on these roads, but they may be inadequate for increased volumes of project-related traffic, including increased truck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR identified this as a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the project proponent would construct the street improvements along Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road described in Draft EIR mitigation measure TRAF-9 to reduce access impacts related to heavy truck traffic. 2. Water: The project site is not connected to public water services; instead, the project site relies on existing on-site water wells and a 4,000-gallon on-site water tank for its domestic, non-potable water. Bottled water is used for drinking water. Currently, the well serving the airport property is insufficient to serve additional project development. According to the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed project, at the programmatic level of analysis, sufficient water supplies are available to serve its water demand under normal and dry conditions, including existing and planned land uses, over the 20-year projection period (Draft EIR Appendix I). This would be accomplished through the use of one or more of the proposed options, including on-site expansion of wells for extraction and treatment of additional groundwater, importation of treated water from Discovery Bay Community Services District (CSD), or importation and on-site treatment of additional water from Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID). However, as development under the proposed project proceeds, each of the potential supplies considered would require additional feasibility analysis to determine the actual potential for project implementation, and would require appropriate agreements (e.g., will-serve letter) from the off-site suppliers before any development requiring potable water could be permitted. This process is incorporated into MM-UTIL-1. Connection to either Discovery Bay CSD or BBID may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of groundwater systems would be the ideal method. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project site is not connected to public sewer services; instead, the airport relies on an existing on-site septic system and leach field for its sanitary service. The Byron Airport Infrastructure Study considered two potential wastewater generation rates (Mead & Hunt 2013). The Infrastructure Study compared two generation rates for bulk warehousing and industrial development: the Central CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 4 of 36 Contra Costa Sanitary District’s Collection System Master Plan rate of 1,000 gpd per gross acre, and the City of Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet of building square footage. The Infrastructure Study used the Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet, resulting in an estimated 96,000 gpd build-out demand. The development assumptions in the Infrastructure Study are greater than for the proposed project (146.9 acres and 3,840,000 square feet of building space, compared to 70 acres and 941,000 square feet of building space for the proposed project). Applying the Oakland rate to the proposed project would result in an estimated wastewater flow of 23,525 gpd. However, the Town of Discovery Bay, which contains the nearest wastewater treatment plant, uses a wastewater generation rate of 2,000 gpd per acre of industrial development and 1,600 gpd per acre of commercial development. Using these flow rates, wastewater flow would be 89,920 gpd for non-aviation uses. Therefore, the project’s wastewater requirements would exceed existing infrastructure. MM-UTIL-2 requires implementation of a wastewater system, per the recommendations of the Byron Airport Infrastructure Study (Mead & Hunt 2013), which studied several options for expansion of the on-site sewer system. The options include requiring each new use or development to provide for its own wastewater disposal, in effect distributing wastewater treatment to smaller leach fields throughout the site, or development of centralized treatment though use of an on-site package wastewater treatment plant and establishment of collection pipelines. For an on-site treatment plant, effluent disposal may be accomplished through landscape irrigation if the effluent is treated to a level to meet Title 22 CCR standards. A third option is connection to an existing sewer system: either the Discovery Bay Community Services District or the Byron Sanitary District. Connection to Discovery Bay would involve off-site construction of a force main and likely modifications to the existing sewage lift station (or a new lift station). Connection to Byron Sanitary District would likely require an expansion of Byron Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment facility. Connection to either Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of septic systems and leach fields would be the ideal method. 4. Fire Protection: The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 59, which is located approximately 8 miles to the north. Project elements would comply with federal, state, and local requirements regarding fire protection, including the California Building Code and California Fire Code, and California Government Code Section 51182 and Public Resources Code Section 4291, which would reduce fire hazards to buildings and structures. Byron Airport maintains its own water system for fire suppression, which would be expanded prior to any airport-related industrial or commercial development. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 5 of 36 5. Public Protection: The County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services within the county. The nearest County Sheriff’s station to the project site is Delta Station, located approximately 12.2 miles northwest in Oakley. Although the project would expand aviation and non-aviation uses at the site, which would increase the number of people on the site, the project would not include residential uses that would cause substantial population growth in the county. Furthermore, the project would primarily employ people residing in the region and would not substantially increase demand for housing or result in population growth (see Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR). Population is used by the Sheriff’s Office to determine the need for new or expanded facilities (General Plan Policy 7-57). The project is not expected to increase demand for police protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required. 6. Parks and Recreation: The County Public Works Department provides park and recreational services to the unincorporated County, including the project site. The project would not involve development of residential uses or result in a direct or indirect population growth that would, in turn, increase demand on regional parks and open spaces. Therefore, impacts related to parks and recreational resources would be less than significant. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: Flood zones identified on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). An SFHA is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1%-annual-chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. . FEMA has mapped SFHAs on the project site, which are labeled flood zones A, AE, and B. The flood zone widens significantly along Brushy Creek in an area located west of Runway 12-30 and west of Falcon Way, and spreads over low-lying areas between the two runways and south of Runway 5-23. The flood zone crosses Falcon Way near its intersection with Armstrong Road and crosses the northeastern end of Runway 5-23. Review of the flood zone shows that it is largely confined to areas of the project site that would be designated as habitat management or low intensity use. However, the flood zone intersects an area designated for airport-related uses just south of Armstrong Road, northwest of Runway 12-30. There is also a regulatory floodway along Brushy Creek, which intersects the northern edge of the proposed development area for airport-related uses. In addition, the 100-year flood hazard area terminates at the airport’s 15-acre detention basin located southeast of Runway 12-30 and east of Runway 5-23. East of the detention basin, a 500-year hazard area (also referred to as a 0.2%-annual- chance flood hazard) is mapped by FEMA. Prior to and at full build-out, the project would involve substantial increases in the amount of impervious surfaces, which has the potential to substantially increase CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 6 of 36 the rate and volume of storm runoff during peak storm events without adequate measures to detain, retain, or slow the increased flows. The distribution and extent of impervious surfaces to be constructed is not known precisely at this time but would occur in a 70-acre area planned for non-aviation uses (46.6 acres) and the aviation area (23.5 acres). At full build-out, the total building footprint for all new uses is anticipated to be approximately 914,000 square feet (or 21 acres). Though some of this area may consist of landscaping or water quality control BMPs (e.g., swales, gravel, or pervious pavement), most of the building footprint is expected to consist of impervious surfaces, given the anticipated uses (e.g., typically 80% to 90% of the building footprint). The following subsections examine the impacts that altered flow regimes would have on erosion or siltation, on- or off-site flooding, the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the impedance or redirection of flood flows. Due to the increases in impervious surfaces, could result in increases in runoff to the on-site detention basin and to Brushy Creek, which is a natural waterway. If not properly controlled, such increases in runoff could exacerbate on- or off-site flooding that already occurs as part of the existing conditions. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.8.2, a drainage permit would be required to comply with Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits the impairment or impedance of the natural flow of stormwaters; direct physical impacts to watercourses (e.g., through grading, excavation, filling, and/or development); or the construction, alteration or repair of a drainage structure, facility, or channel without first obtaining a permit from the public works department. Division 914 establishes on-site and off-site collect and convey requirements that must be met before development approvals are granted. Applicants are required to substantiate that both on-site and off-site drainage facilities have adequate capacity to convey specified design storm events, that the capacity and stability of natural watercourses are adequately protected, and that environmentally sensitive flow velocity attenuation techniques approved by the Public Works Department are implemented. C. Rezone Findings 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The proposed project is located primarily within the PS designation, in which public airports are a compatible use. The existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas are designated as PS. The proposed project also includes the redesignation of the 11.7-acre parcel from AL to PS, which, after its redesignation, would result in the entire project being located within the PS designation. The remainder of the airport property is designated OS, CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 7 of 36 consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property. The portion of the project site where development may occur is fully located inside the County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL). All proposed land uses, both aviation-related and non-aviation-related, will be located on land designated PS and within the ULL. The proposed GPA involves revising policies to expand the allowed uses at Byron Airport and redesignate the 11.7-acre parcel to PS to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program. The expanded aviation and non-aviation uses allowed under the P-1 zoning are consistent with the PS designation of the land inside the ULL and will support the General Plan goal of operating two airports in the county, among other goals and policies. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The airport property is currently zoned P-1. The P-1 zoning is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space areas while ensuring compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. The amended Planned Unit District will identify four separate development areas: Aviation, Airport Related, Low-Intensity Use, and Habitat Management (see Attachment 7, Proposed Site Plan). The most important change would be to the airport-related uses, which would allow non-residential development that is compatible with the ALUCP for Byron Airport. These uses would include light industry, warehousing and logistics, commercial, and low- intensity office. In addition, the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County would be rezoned from A-3 to P-1 in order to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program. Byron Airport is surrounded by low-intensity uses. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner-of-war camp, is located north of the airport, agricultural and rural residential uses border the east and west sides of the airport property, and agricultural lands and property owned by East Bay Regional Park District are located to the south. The airport is the most developed property in the area. The proposed higher-intensity land uses are commonly located adjacent to airports and are compatible with the existing airport uses. While the surrounding properties have not been developed with higher intensity uses, the agricultural zoning allows uses of an industrial nature, such as packing plants, granaries, and warehouses, by right. The proposed uses are therefore compatible with the adjacent zoning. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 8 of 36 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: Byon Airport currently operates at an annual net deficit. Allowing for more land uses and increased intensities within the Byron Airport planning area will increase revenue for the airport and County. Allowing for more land uses also helps improve the Jobs/Housing balance in East Contra Costa County. According to General Plan Table 2-4, the projected jobs/hosing ratio for East County in 2020 was 0.45 jobs per resident. This low ratio results in a large population of East County residents commuting out of the county for work, rather than commuting locally. This mass exodus from East County communities creates significant traffic along local roads and highways, among other negative impacts to the environment and quality of life. Providing new, high quality economic opportunities for residents in East County would help make a dent in the jobs/housing ratio. D. Findings of Approval of P-1 Zoning District and Final Development Plan 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one- half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 ½ years of the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Project Finding: The County General Plan designates the existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas as Public/Semi-Public (PS). The remainder of the airport property is designated as Open Space (consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property) (Contra Costa County 2017). The General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change. The 11.7-acre acquisition parcel would be redesignated from Agricultural Lands (AL) to PS. General Plan Policy 5-66 states, “Establishment of commercial, industrial or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed” (Contra Costa County 2005b). This policy would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on airport property if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Airport Master Plan for Byron Airport. Policy 5- 77 would be updated to reflect the new compatibility zone designations (Zone B- 1 would become Safety Zone 2) and the additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP for Byron Airport. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 9 of 36 The project would help implement General Plan Goal 5-Q, to encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county, by providing for the economic development and financial self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The General Plan policies regarding the airport would be amended to clarify that compatible non-aviation uses would be allowed on airport property. General Plan Policy 5-66 would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on-airport if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Byron Airport Master Plan. Not only would increasing the economic viability of Byron Airport help it operate in a financially beneficial way to the County, but it would also help support the Jobs/Housing balance in East Contra Costa County. According to General Plan Table 2-4, the projected jobs/hosing ratio for East County in 2020 was 0.45 jobs per resident. This low ratio results in a large population of East County residents commuting westward for work, rather than commuting locally or eastward. This mass exodus from East County communities creates significant traffic along local roads and highways, among other negative impacts to the environment and quality of life. Providing new, high quality economic opportunities for residents in East County would help make a dent in the jobs/housing ratio, especially with the rapidly increasing population growth in East County. With the included amendments, the proposed project would be consistent with the County General Plan. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: The project does not include any residential development. 4. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding: The airport property is currently zoned Planned Unit District (P- 1). The P-1 zoning is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space areas while ensuring substantial compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. The amended Planned Unit District will identify four separate development areas: Aviation, Airport Related, Low-Intensity Use, and Habitat Management. The most important change would be to the airport-related uses, which would allow non-residential development that is compatible with the ALUCP for Byron Airport. These uses would include light industry, warehousing and logistics, commercial, and low- intensity office. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 10 of 36 The P-1 district for Byron Airport would also be revised to identify the land use categories used in the ALUCP: aviation, non-aviation, low intensity, and habitat management. Additional land uses that could be allowed within the aviation and non-aviation areas would be identified, as discussed in Section 2.6, Proposed Land Uses and Zoning, of the Draft EIR. The P-1 modification would specify that all proposed land uses must be reviewed by County staff for consistency with the current ALUCP. The zoning would also implement the ALUCP and General Plan standards for compatible land use, including height restrictions. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administrative 1. Approval is granted for a General Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation of the subject 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS), in order to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program, and to modify the language of General Plan Policies 5-66 and 5-77. 2. Approval is granted for a Rezone to change the subject 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) in order to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program. 3. Approval is granted to amend the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to allow for the additional compatible uses and updated policies regarding safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. Development Plan Modification 4. Approval is granted for a Development Plan Modification to allow for the identified aviation, airport-related, low-intensity, and habitat management land uses. 5. Development standards for non-aviation uses are as follows: a. Setback: 25 feet b. Side Yard: 10 feet c. Aggregate Side Yard: 20 feet d. Height Limit: 40 feet CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 11 of 36 e. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): i. Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution: 0.30 ii. Light Industry/Business Park: 0.35 iii. Office: 0.40 iv. Commercial: 0.30 6. Additional land uses allowed under the Byron Airport Development Plan are as listed in Attachment 8 of this document. Aesthetics 7. Non-aviation development shall be subject to the following design requirements (MM- AES-1): a. Long facades should be designed with building articulation and landscaping to break them up into smaller visual elements, avoiding public views of uninterrupted blank walls. b. For industrial and warehouse buildings, bright reflective colors and materials shall not be allowed. Paint colors should be earth tones. Natural finishes such as brick or stone facades may also be incorporated into the design. c. Project lighting shall comply with the policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. d. Loading areas should be located and designed to minimize direct exposure to public views. e. Structures and parking lots located on the eastern edge of the airport property shall incorporate landscaping to screen public views. The type, quantity and placement of plant material should be selected for its compatibility with airport uses (tree heights, plants that are not wildlife attractants), as well as structure, texture, color and compatibility with the building design and materials. The design of non-aviation development shall be reviewed by both Department of Conservation and Development and Airports Division staff prior to issuance of building permits for conformance with these standards. Aviation uses shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 12 of 36 Air Quality 8. The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects (MM-AQ-1): a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. 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, 13 CCR 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency 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. 9. The project shall implement the following measures for all facilities in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. To the extent that the measures below are addressed by MM-AQ-4 as part of any health risk assessment that is prepared, the measures in MM-AQ-4 shall take precedence (MM-AQ-2). a. Only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the project site. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 13 of 36 b. Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. c. Prior to tenant occupancy, the facility operator shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. d. The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24 shall be provided. In addition, the buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future. e. Conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the facility operator during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. 10. For non-aviation facilities with construction proposed within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors, a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared to assess exposure of existing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) during project construction. If the health risk assessment determines that cancer and non-cancer impacts would be less than significant, no additional measures are needed. Alternatively, the results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than-significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following (MM-AQ-3): a. Portable equipment used during construction shall be powered by electricity from the grid instead of diesel-powered generators, to the maximum amount feasible. b. Equip heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or better diesel engines, except where Tier 4 Interim or better engines are not available for specific construction equipment. Contra Costa County shall verify and approve all pieces within the construction fleet that would not meet Tier 4 Interim standards. At a minimum, Tier 3 engines will be required if Tier 4 engines are not available. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 14 of 36 c. All conditions of approval/mitigations shall be placed on construction drawings and part of any construction contract. Physical copies of the plans shall be available at the on-site job trailer. 11. For non-aviation uses, a health risk assessment of long-term operations shall be prepared if the proposed facility is within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors and would result in any of the following (MM-AQ-4): a. Accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, or b. Accommodate more than 40 trucks with operating TRUs per day, or c. Where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week. Results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than-significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: d. Idling of diesel equipment of any type shall be strictly prohibited at the premises. The property owner/tenant/lessee shall inform all business partners, visitors, etc., of the Zero-Idling Rule in effect for the subject property and area streets. Highly visible signs prohibiting idling shall be posted at each entrance and exist. Violators of this zero-idling rule are subject to fines and or criminal charges. e. Within 90 days of occupying the space, the facility operator shall submit to the Airports Division and the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) the first of an annual inventory of all equipment that generates criteria pollutant, TACs, and GHG emissions operated at the subject location throughout the life of the project up to year 2035. The equipment inventory shall include the year, make, and model of the equipment that was used in the previous year, including annual hours of operation for each piece of equipment, including but not limited to heavy-duty drayage and non-drayage trucks, yard equipment, bulk material handling equipment (forklifts, etc.), and any other type of material handling equipment. The purpose of the inventory is to track emissions/equipment and to assist in technology reviews. f. The facility operator shall purchase/lease or otherwise acquire zero-emission vehicles/equipment (including: light/heavy duty trucks, drayage equipment, forklifts and generators) when commercially available as the attrition of gasoline/diesel equipment occurs. The property owner/tenant/lessee is encouraged to utilize any or all funding opportunities offered by CARB and other available programs. The availability of zero- emission equipment shall be CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 15 of 36 determined in a joint effort between the Airports Division and the facility operator as part of an annual technology review. g. The facility operator shall adhere to the findings of the annual technologies review for reducing air emissions as part of the County Climate Action Plan and long- range sustainability goals, which encourage property owners and tenants to use cleaner technologies over time as they become available. A priority goal of the review will be the replacement of older equipment in operation at the subject site that generates the highest levels of criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions. The equipment to be replaced will be determined based on the level of emissions and cost-effectiveness of the emissions reduction (e.g., biggest reduction per dollar), and identify implementation mechanisms including, but not limited to, tenant- based improvements, grant programs, or a combination thereof, based on regulatory requirements and the feasibility analysis performed by the Airports Division. The Carl Moyer Program, or similar cost-effectiveness criteria, shall be used to assess the economic feasibility (e.g., cost effectiveness) of the identified new technologies. Zero-emission equipment employed pursuant to this mitigation may be replaced by other technologies or other types of equipment as long as the replacement equipment achieves the same or greater criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emission reductions as compared to the equipment identified as part of the technology review. h. Every California based TRU and electronic-TRU (E-TRU) operational at the site must be registered with the Air Resource Board Equipment Registration and shall be labeled with a CARB Identification Number. Business operations handling TRUs shall install charging infrastructure and encourage E-TRUs on site and require those non-E-TRUs to plug in while stationary at the facility. i. Prior to occupancy the facility operator shall demonstrate compliance with all newly adopted Ordinances/Statutes/Plans and requirements passed by all responsible agencies in relation to traffic, diesel emissions and air quality improvement measures. Biological Resources 12. Swainson’s Hawk Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization and Construction Monitoring & Migratory Bird Treaty Act Nesting Bird Avoidance (MM-BIO-1): a. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15–September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 16 of 36 occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below). During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent can apply to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non- native trees, lost to covered activities shall be mitigated by planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according. Preference shall be to provide on-site mitigation if feasible. Planting of replacement trees must be reviewed by the Airports Division for compatibility with airport operations. The project proponent shall either pay the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Habitat Conservancy) an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Preserve System for every tree lost, or the project proponent shall plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Habitat Conservancy and per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP. b. As part of the pre-construction survey for Swainson’s Hawk, the qualified biologist approved by Contra Costa County shall also survey for native nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer from the nests shall be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and planned construction activity. Consultation with CDFW may be required to determine appropriate buffer distances. These nests shall be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist. Any habitat (i.e., trees and brush) would be removed outside of the breeding bird season. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 17 of 36 13. Western Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization, and Construction Monitoring (MM-BIO-2): a. In accordance with Conditions on Covered Activities described in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)- approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in grassland areas identified as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (CDFG 1995). b. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1–August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. c. This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). d. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the project proponent shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1– January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). e. During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 18 of 36 (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. f. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (CDFG 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. 14. California Red-Legged Frog Avoidance (MM-BIO-3): a. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including, photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. b. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. c. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). 15. California Tiger Salamander Minimization (MM-BIO-4): a. Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity, including photos and breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 19 of 36 the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California tiger salamanders within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. b. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individual California tiger salamanders within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). 16. Rare Plant Surveys and Mitigation (MM-BIO-5): a. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct protocol-level special- status plant surveys of the undisturbed areas of the project site for alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), diamond- petaled poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). b. As part of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) application for coverage, the surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming periods. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the plant species in the region. These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with 2009 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey protocols. c. If any special-status plant species are observed during surveys, the project proponent shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity (i.e., East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy) of the construction schedule so as to allow the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity the option to salvage the population(s) in accordance with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 3.10 (Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable) described below. Additionally, the project proponent CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 20 of 36 shall confirm with the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity that the take limits of the HCP/NCCP for the species identified have not been reached. d. The following special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site are covered by the HCP/NCCP: brittlescale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, and recurved larkspur. Alkali milk-vetch, diamond-petaled poppy, and Contra Costa goldfields are analyzed in the HCP/NCCP but are “no take” species, and avoidance is the only acceptable mitigation measure. e. Congdon’s tarplant and spiny-sepaled button-celery are not addressed in the HCP/NCCP. For these plants, mitigation shall consist of, in order of preference, (1) avoidance, (2) salvage and transplant as described below, or (3) off-site habitat enhancement or restoration in consultation with CDFW. 17. Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable (Covered Species) (MM-BIO-5): a. Perennial Covered Plants: Where impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by approved covered activities, the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity has the option of salvaging the covered plants. Salvage methods for perennial species shall be tested for whole individuals, cuttings, and seeds. Salvage measures shall include the evaluation of techniques for transplanting as well as germinating seed in garden or greenhouse and then transplanting to suitable habitat sites in the field. Techniques shall be tested for each species, and appropriate methods shall be identified through research and adaptive management. Where plants are transplanted or seeds distributed to the field they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. Field trials shall be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different methods and determine the best methods to establish new populations. New populations shall be located such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting within the preserves shall only minimally disturb existing native vegetation and soils. Supplemental watering may be provided as necessary to increase the chances of successful establishment, but must be removed following initial population establishment. See also All Covered Plants, below. b. Annual Covered Plants: For annual covered plants, mature seeds shall be collected from all individuals for which impacts cannot be avoided (or if the population is large, a representative sample of individuals). If storage is necessary, seed storage studies shall be conducted to determine the best storage techniques for each CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 21 of 36 species. If needed, studies shall be conducted on seed germinated and plants grown to maturity in garden or greenhouse to propagate larger numbers of seed. Seed propagation methods shall ensure that genetic variation is not substantially affected by propagation (i.e., selection for plants best adapted to cultivated conditions). Field studies shall be conducted through the Adaptive Management Program to determine the efficacy and best approach to dispersal of seed into suitable habitat. Where seeds are distributed to the field, they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. If seed collection methods fail (e.g., due to excessive seed predation by insects), alternative propagation techniques shall be necessary. See also All Covered Plants, below. c. All Covered Plants: All salvage operations shall be conducted by the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity. To ensure enough time to plan salvage operations, project proponents shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity of their schedule for removing the covered plant population. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity may conduct investigations into the efficacy of salvaging seeds from the soil seed bank for both perennial and annual species. The soil seed bank may add to the genetic variability of the population. Covered species may be separated from the soil though garden/greenhouse germination or other appropriate means. Topsoil taken from impact sites shall not be distributed into preserves because of the risk of spreading new non-native and invasive plants to preserves. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity will transplant new populations such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting or seeding “receptor” sites (i.e., habitat suitable for establishing a new population) should be carefully selected on the basis of physical, biological, and logistical considerations (Fiedler and Laven 1996); some examples of these are listed below: i. Historic range of the species. ii. Soil type. iii. Soil moisture. iv. Topographic position, including slope and aspect. v. Site hydrology. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 22 of 36 vi. Mycorrhizal associates (this may be important for Mount Diablo manzanita). vii. Presence or absence of typical associated plant species. viii. Presence or absence of herbivores or plant competitors. ix. Site accessibility for establishment, monitoring, and protection from trampling by cattle or trail users. 18. Wetlands and Waters of the United States or State (MM-BIO-6.a): Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County (County) shall retain a qualified biologist or wetland scientist to prepare a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to determine the extent of potentially jurisdictional features within the project disturbance area. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States or waters of the state shall require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the form of a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the form of a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such permits typically include measures to avoid and minimize or mitigate impacts. Where avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands or waters is not feasible, replacement of resources is required in the form of restoration or creation. The project shall seek coverage under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) for impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands. If neither avoidance nor coverage under the HCP/NCCP is feasible, the County shall comply with the requirements of the 404 permit coverage for on- or off-site mitigation, at a replacement ration of no less than 1:1. 19. Brushy Creek Setback (MM-BIO-6.b): Per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP and Contra Costa County General Plan policy, a development setback of 75 feet from Brushy Creek (measured from top of bank) is required. Note that a lesser setback (for an area less than 300 linear feet) may be approved in consultation with the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy. 20. Alkali Grassland Avoidance and Mitigation (MM-BIO-7): A portion of the aviation development area, adjacent to the existing facilities, includes alkali grassland. Ultimate development of this site shall require either avoidance, or establishment of like alkali grassland outside of the development area, which shall be made under consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Because this area is relatively disturbed, is isolated from similar habitat, and is maintained on an on-going basis by airport staff, it does not represent an exemplary patch of alkali grassland. Mitigation ratios for impacts to alkali grassland will be determined in consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 23 of 36 21. San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring (MM-BIO-8): a. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). b. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. c. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below shall be implemented: i. If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. ii. Unoccupied dens should be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. iii. If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. iv. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 24 of 36 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). d. If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. 22. East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Covered Shrimp Preconstruction Survey, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring (MM-BIO-9): a. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having suitable shrimp habitat. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of covered shrimp and/or habitat features and evaluate use by listed shrimp in accordance with modified USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1996a). Project proponents are required to conduct USFWS protocol surveys in 1 year (rather than 2) to determine presence or absence of listed shrimp species. If covered shrimp are absent from the site, there are no further requirements related to covered shrimp. If covered shrimp are present, the following avoidance and minimization and construction monitoring measures are required: i. To the maximum extent practicable, impacts on occupied habitat of covered shrimp shall be avoided by implementing the following measures based on existing mitigation standards (USFWS 1996b). ii. If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, establish a buffer (described below) from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp. Alternatively, at the request of the project proponent, representatives of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and USFWS may conduct site visits to inspect the particular characteristics of specific project sites and may approve reductions of the buffer. Buffer reductions may be approved for all or portions of the site whenever reduced setbacks will maintain the hydrology of the seasonal wetland and achieve the same or greater habitat values as would be achieved by the original buffer. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 25 of 36 iii. Activities inconsistent with the maintenance of seasonal wetlands within the buffers and disturbance of the on-site watershed shall be prohibited. Inconsistent activities include altering existing topography; placing new structures within the buffers; dumping, burning, and/or burying garbage or any other wastes or fill materials; building new roads or trails; removing or disturbing existing native vegetation; installing storm drains; and using pesticides or other toxic chemicals. iv. Filling of seasonal wetlands, if unavoidable, shall be delayed until pools are dry and samples from the top 4 inches of wetland soils are collected. Soil collection will shall be sufficient to include a representative sample of plant and animal life present in the wetland by incorporating seeds, cysts, eggs, spores, and similar inocula. The amount of soil collected shall be determined by the size of the wetland filled and the variation in physical and biological conditions within the wetland. The number and size of samples shall be sufficient to capture this variation. For very small wetlands it may be most cost effective to simply collect all topsoil. These samples shall be provided to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy so that the soil can be translocated to suitable habitat within the inventory area unoccupied by covered shrimp or used to inoculate newly created seasonal wetlands on preserve lands. v. Seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp that are filled shall be offset by preserving or acquiring seasonal wetlands occupied by the covered shrimp species and restoring habitat suitable for the covered shrimp species in accordance with Conservation Measure 3.8. Such mitigation shall supersede requirements for mitigation of impacts on wetland habitat when covered species are present. b. If suitable habitat for covered shrimp shall be retained on site, project proponents shall establish a buffer from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied (or assumed to be occupied) by covered shrimp. This buffer zone shall be determined in the field by the biologists as the immediate watershed feeding the seasonal wetland or a minimum of 50 feet, whichever is greater. Buffers shall be marked by brightly colored fencing or flagging throughout the construction process. Activities shall be prohibited within this buffer in accordance with the minimization measure above. c. Construction personnel shall be trained to avoid affecting shrimp. A qualified biologist approved by USFWS shall inform all construction personnel about the life history of covered shrimp, the importance of avoiding their habitat, and the terms and conditions of the Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 26 of 36 Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan related to avoiding and minimizing impacts on covered shrimp. Cultural Resources 23. Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources (MM-CUL-1): Prior to commencement of any construction activities involving ground disturbance, Contra Costa County, a qualified archaeologist, representatives from interested Native American Tribes, and the construction contractor shall be invited to meet or otherwise discuss by conference call the project site’s archaeological sensitivity and determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. Given the present disturbed condition in some locations surrounding existing airport facilities, areas of elevated potential for encountering unanticipated resources should be considered those within 500 feet of the historic-era corral and Brushy Creek, and no deeper than 4 feet below the present ground surface. An archaeological monitor and a monitor from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in these areas, after which the monitoring frequency shall be reduced to periodic spot-checks elsewhere. The monitoring strategy shall be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) based on the results of monitoring within areas of elevated archaeological sensitivity and as recommended by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed, work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted or directed to another location until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. If the resources are determined to be historical resources or unique (pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), the qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations prioritizing resource avoidance, or, where avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. 24. Accidental Discovery of Human Remains (MM-CUL-2): Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), in the event of the discovery of human remains, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the Contra Costa County (County) Coroner/Sheriff shall be immediately notified. The County Coroner/Sheriff shall determine if an investigation is necessary. If the remains are determined to be Native American: a. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. b. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 27 of 36 c. The MLD shall have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the County for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 25. Should a potential tribal cultural resource (TCR) be inadvertently encountered, construction activities within 100 feet of the TCR shall be halted and Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (Department) notified. The Department shall notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. Any affected tribe shall be provided a reasonable period of time to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCR. Depending on the nature of the potential resource and tribal recommendations, review by a qualified archaeologist may be required. Implementation of proposed recommendations shall be made based on the determination of the County that the approach is reasonable and feasible. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. (MM-CUL-3) 26. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) (MM-CUL-4): The County shall require the contractor to provide a cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be developed in coordination with an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, as well as culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The County will invite Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to participate. The WEAP shall be conducted before any ground-disturbing construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP shall include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and shall outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP shall emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and shall discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values. Geology, Soils, and Minerals 27. Prior to the approval of any building or improvement plans, a geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil or geotechnical engineer and submitted to the County CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 28 of 36 Department of Conservation and Development. The report shall address the specific approach to development. This report shall include the following (MM-GEO-1): a. Provide specific criteria and standards for identifying suitable imported fill materials; b. If import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for the import fill materials; c. If import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for testing of soils on rough-graded pads and providing design measures to avoid/control damage to foundations and buried utilities; d. Provide criteria for placement of engineered fill; e. Provide further evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation; f. Provide detailed evaluation of the compressibility of the alluvial soils and forecast the anticipated amount of total settlement and timing of settlement to occur or placing a surcharge on the site to speed settlement; g. Provide California Building Code seismic parameters; h. Outline recommendations for geotechnical observation and testing services during site preparation-, grading-and foundation-related work. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. 28. If paleontological resources (i.e., fossil bones, teeth, shells, plants, or trace fossils) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large paleontological resources. Depending upon the significance of the find, the qualified paleontologist may simply remove and record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, additional work, such as data recovery and extended specimen removal, may be warranted. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program for the project, which outlines where paleontological monitoring is required based on the location of the discovery, geotechnical reports, and construction plans. The qualified paleontologist shall also be required to curate specimens in a CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 29 of 36 repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a final written report to the repository and lead agency for review. (MM-GEO-2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions 29. The individual development projects shall include the following transit-oriented and alternative transportation development design features to reduce the use of single- occupancy fossil fueled vehicles and vehicle miles traveled (MM-GHG-1): a. Provide preferred parking for zero/low emission vehicles. Bicycle parking and only the minimum amount of auto parking shall be provided to encourage alternative forms of travel. b. Install conduits from the building(s) to the parking lot(s), to allow for installation of EV charging stations for vehicles. The proportion of EV parking spaces shall comply with the applicable CALGreen standards. c. The proposed project shall promote ridesharing programs through a multifaceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles; designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles; or providing a website or message board for coordinating rides. d. The proposed project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip-reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip-reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy would result in lower vehicle miles traveled reductions. Marketing strategies may include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options; event promotions; or publications. 30. The individual development projects shall include the following design features to reduce the demand for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (MM-GHG-2): a. Obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for building construction, where feasible. b. Provide the maximum amount of skylights to reduce electricity use associated with interior lighting. c. All facility lighting shall meet or exceed the applicable Title 24 requirements. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 30 of 36 d. All installed appliances (e.g., washer/dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers) shall be Energy Star rated or equivalent. e. Design proposed buildings with: i. Roof structure with additional load (defined as 1 to 2 pounds per square foot) capacity to allow the future installation of solar panels without retrofitting. The installation of solar panels would comply with the policy and procedures set forth in the Interim Policy for FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports (78 FR 63276). ii. Installation of an above market sized electrical infrastructure system (larger electrical room for future expansion, underground conduits (car, truck and loading dock) for future electrical charging systems, as well as additional conduits into the grid system for future expand-ability. 31. The individual development projects shall incorporate the following design features to conserve water (MM-GHG-3): a. Install low flow plumbing fixtures, such as faucets, toilets, and showers. b. Utilize water efficient landscaping to reduce the usage of outdoor water on the premises. c. Construct dual plumbing for both potable and recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation, unless determined infeasible by Department of Conservation and Development, Current Planning Division Hazards and Hazardous Materials 32. Prior to initiation of grading and construction, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be in-place and consist of the following (MM-HAZ-1): a. Identification of areas of potential fuel- or oil-impacted soils on a site plan. b. Protocol for identifying suspected contaminated soils (e.g., discoloring, odor, positive photoionization detector readings), utilizing personnel trained in recognition of contaminated soils/groundwater and certified with respect to Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (i.e., OSHA HAZWOPER training). CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 31 of 36 c. Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and to Contra Costa Environmental Health Department and local agencies, as needed. d. Procedures for temporary cessation of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern. e. Procedures for limiting access to the contaminated area to personnel with OSHA HAZWOPER training. f. A worker health and safety plan for excavation of contaminated soil and/or groundwater. g. Procedures for characterizing, managing, and disposing of potentially contaminated soils. 33. Prior to development of the former agricultural areas identified ion Figure 3.7-1, Hazards Site Map, soil samples shall be collected and tested for pesticides. Shallow soil samples shall be collected from the upper 0.5 to –1.0 foot of ground surface from the site soils and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081A and arsenic by EPA Method 6010B. The soil samples shall be analyzed by a California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified laboratory. The pesticide sampling data shall be compared to applicable regulatory threshold levels such as the EPA Regional Screening Levels and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office Note 3 screening levels. The arsenic sampling data shall be compared to California typical background levels, such as those in the 1996 Kearney Foundation Special Report on Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. If the soil sampling concentrations, using the 95% upper confidence level or other statistical evaluation, exceed the screening level, mitigation shall include removal of impacted soil for off-site disposal prior to or during construction grading. A soil management plan, including a health and safety plan, shall be prepared to properly manage the excavated soil and protect worker and public health and safety. (MM-HAZ-2) Hydrology and Water Quality 34. Hydrology and Drainage Study (MM-HYD-1): a. Prior to approval of individual development plans, a Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be prepared for the project to refine the size and hydrologic characteristics of drainage areas that intersect the project site, to estimate pre- and post-project flow CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 32 of 36 rates and volumes under 10- 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events, and to provide recommendations for needed improvements. The Hydrology and Drainage Study shall quantify the capacity of the existing detention basin; determine whether or not it will be sufficient to serve future land uses; and establish the hydrology performance criteria and design standards applicable to potential future tenants, based on the destination of runoff (i.e., detention basin or Bushy Creek) and the degree of impervious surface coverage. The study shall be consistent with the hydrology performance criteria and design standards contained within the Contra Costa County Drainage Ordinance (Division 914), which include but are not limited to: i. Drainage facilities shall be designed to convey a minimum (with sufficient freeboard) of the runoff produced by a) a 10-year storm event for facilities draining an area of less than 1 square mile, b) a 25-year storm event for facilities draining an area of between 1 and 4 square miles, and c) a 50-year storm event (and 100-year event without freeboard) for facilities draining an area of more than 4 square mile. ii. Finished floors shall be elevated above the base flood elevation of the one- hundred-year frequency storm runoff, as determined using the maximum potential development of the drainage basin or watershed shall. iii. Storm flows shall be collected and conveyed in a manner that avoids damage to any improvement, building site or dwelling which may be constructed as part of the project. iv. Detention basins shall be sized to contain without freeboard a one- hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff, unless it can be shown that a one- hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff can be safely passed through the detention basin without damage to the detention basin or any other property. v. Drainage capacity shall be provided that accounts for the full build-out of uses anticipated with the drainage area. b. The study shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (Flood Control District) for review and approval prior to finalizing individual development plans. In addition, the Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff to ensure any drainage basins proposed are consistent with Federal Aviation Administration aviation obstruction standards for avian attractants (e.g., requirement to drain ponded water within 48 hours of a major storm event). CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 33 of 36 35. Drainage Protection and Flood Control (MM-HYD-2): For all areas of the project within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA]), Contra Costa County shall ensure that development proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 82-28), Contra Costa County Flood Control Ordinance, and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Development proposals in this area shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review and approval, and all requirements imposed by the department shall be satisfied. Such requirements may include floodproofing measures (such as elevating structures above the base flood elevation and providing the required freeboard). In the event development proposals involve encroachment onto or undergrounding of Brushy Creek, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained, per MM-BIO-6, and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department shall be provided with drainage studies and engineering reports sufficient to demonstrate that flood flows on Brushy Creek would not be impeded or redirected. For all development planned within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, subject to approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the developer would be required to file a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to process the change and shall obtain a FEMA modification of the SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Transportation and Traffic 36. Construct a protected receiving lane on Byron Highway at Holey Road for eastbound left turns, an eastbound left turn pocket, and a northbound left turn pocket. The receiving lane would transition to a through-lane across the railroad tracks north of the Byron Highway/Holey Road intersection. (MM-TRA-1) 37. Construct a signal and a northbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Byron Highway and Byron Hot Springs Road. (MM-TRA-2) 38. Implement overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of Byron Highway and Camino Diablo. Alternatively, construct a roundabout if feasible (considering right of way constraints from the railroad). (MM-TRA-3) 39. Convert the intersection of Holway Drive and Camino Diablo to an all-way stop controlled intersection and construct an eastbound left turn lane at this intersection. (MM-TRA-4) 40. Implement the following at the Byron Highway and Holway Drive intersection (MM-TRA-5): CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 34 of 36 a. Construction of a signal; and, b. Construction of a southbound right turn pocket; and, c. Construction of a northbound left turn pocket; and, d. Realignment of the three intersections into one signalized intersection. OR e. Construction of a roundabout (may be infeasible due to railroad right of way). OR f. Termination of Holway Drive south of the railroad tracks; and, g. Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Byron Highway and Camino Diablo. 41. Construct an additional westbound right turn pocket on Camino Diablo at Vasco Road. Extend the northbound right and southbound left turn. (MM-TRA-6) 42. Prior to the completion of the first airport-related development that would serve heavy trucks, the project proponent shall construct the following local street improvements (MM-TRA-7): a. Widen Byron Hot Springs Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes from Byron Highway to Holey Road. b. Widen Holey Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes from the Airport property line to Byron Highway. c. Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Armstrong Road. d. Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. 43. Implement MM-TRA-1 at Byron Highway and Holey Road. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM-TRA-8) CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 35 of 36 44. Implement MM-TRA-2 at Byron Highway and Byron Hot Springs Road. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM- TRA-9) 45. Implement MM-TRA-3 and extend the northbound left turn pocket to accommodate the 95th percentile queue on Byron Highway at Camino Diablo. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM-TRA-10) 46. Construct a signal at the intersection of Holway Drive and Camino Diablo. Construct an eastbound left turn pocket (per MM-TRA-4) and a westbound left turn pocket. Alternatively, construct a roundabout at this location. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM-TRA-11) 47. Implement MM-TRA-5 at Byron Highway and Holway Drive. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM-TRA-12) 48. Construct an urban compact interchange consistent with long-range planning for the Vasco corridor. The project applicant shall pay the project’s fair share of the intersection improvement cost. (MM-TRA-13) Utilities 49. Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses, or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that would increase water demand in excess of the current well system, Contra Costa County (County) shall conduct a feasibility study of the water supply sources identified in the proposed project’s Water Supply Assessment. If the water supply is to consist of connection to the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District or the Town of Discovery Bay, the County shall not permit development to proceed until the feasibility of the water supply has been confirmed, and appropriate agreements or will-serve letters have been obtained from the chosen supplier(s). If part or all of the supply is to come from on-site groundwater, the County shall obtain a water supply permit from the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water, a well drilling permit from Contra Costa County Public Works, and all other applicable permits and approvals prior to development. The feasibility study, will-serve letters, and water supply permit(s) approvals shall be required prior to the start of construction of any uses that involve human occupancy or demand water in excess of currently available supply. (MM-UTIL-1) 50. Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses, or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that involve additional human occupancy, Contra Costa County shall prepare a study for the provision of adequate wastewater disposal. Options for disposal to be studied may include expansion of the on-site septic system, construction of an on-site package wastewater plant, and connection to the Town of Discovery Bay or Byron-Bethany Irrigation District sewer systems. The study shall demonstrate feasibility of the proposed CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Findings & COAs Page 36 of 36 system and compliance with all applicable Contra Costa County and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for wastewater treatment, including waste discharge requirements. If connection to an off-site system is proposed, the study shall demonstrate that the provider has adequate capacity to serve build-out of the proposed project, in addition to existing and proposed future users. Also see MM-HYD-2 above. (MM-UTIL-2) ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Department of Conservation & Development, Community Development Division within the 90 days of the approval date of this permit. FINAL Environmental Impact Report Byron Airport Development Program State Clearinghouse No. 2017092059 County File Nos. GP12-0003, DP14-3008, RZ21-3262 Prepared for: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94553 Contact: Daniel Barrios Prepared by: 1102 R Street Sacramento, California 95811 Contact: Brian Grattidge FEBRUARY 2022 Please consider printing on post-consumer recycled material. Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ACR-i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition AB Assembly Bill AC advisory circular ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ADT average daily traffic AIA Airport Influence Area ALP Airport Layout Plan ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AST aboveground storage tank BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BBID Byron Bethany Irrigation District BMP best management practice BTU British thermal unit CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALGreen California Green Building Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CBPP Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CCR California Code of Regulations CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFC California Fire Code CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane CMA Congestion Management Agency CMP Congestion Management Plan CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent County Contra Costa County ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ACR-ii Acronym/Abbreviation Definition CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DDW Division of Drinking Water DPM diesel particulate matter DWR California Department of Water Resources ECAP East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EO Executive Order EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EV electric vehicle FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA federal Endangered Species Act FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FR Federal Register FTA Federal Transit Administration GC California Government Code GHG greenhouse gas GMP Growth Management Program gpd gallons per day GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan GWh gigawatts per hour GWMP Groundwater Management Plan GWP global warming potential HAP hazardous air pollutant HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC hydrofluorocarbon HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan HU hydrologic unit HUC hydrologic unit code HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I Interstate IGP industrial general permit ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ACR-iii Acronym/Abbreviation Definition in/sec inches per second kBTU thousand British thermal units LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leq equivalent continuous sound level LID low impact development LOS level of service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCL maximum contaminant level MM Mitigation Measure MMT million metric tons mpg miles per gallon MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRZ mineral resource zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MT metric tons Mw moment magnitude N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NFPA National Fire Protection Association NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSLU noise-sensitive land use O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OWTS on-site wastewater treatment system PDA Priority Development Area PFC perfluorocarbon PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PGA peak ground acceleration PM10 coarse particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter ppv peak particle velocity PRC California Public Resources Code project Byron Airport Development Program PUC Public Utilities Code PWS public water system ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ACR-iv Acronym/Abbreviation Definition RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFS Renewable Fuel Standard RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment ROG reactive organic gas RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TCR tribal cultural resource TDS total dissolved solids TMDL total maximum daily load TSA Transportation Security Administration USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VMT vehicle miles traveled WDR waste discharge requirement ZEV zero-emissions vehicle Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ ACR-I ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Analysis of Alternatives .................................................................................. ES-29 ES.3.1 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................... ES-29 ES.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................ ES-30 ES.4 Areas of Controversy ...................................................................................... ES-30 ES.5 Issues to be Resolved by Lead Agency........................................................... ES-31 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Intended Use of this EIR ................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Background and Overview ...................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Environmental Impact Report Process................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ............................................... 1-4 1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR.............................................................................. 1-5 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Background and Overview ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Setting ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Project Site ............................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Proposed Airport Land Use Plan Update ............................................................. 2-4 2.5 General Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Proposed Land Uses and Zoning ......................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Required Agency Actions .................................................................................... 2-9 2.8 Future Development and Environmental Review .............................................. 2-10 2.9 References Cited ................................................................................................ 2-10 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS ..................................................... 3-1 3.0 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.0.1 Project Baseline ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.0.2 Cumulative Setting................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.1-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-ii 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................... 3.1-7 3.1.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................... 3.1-8 3.1.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.1-10 3.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.1-11 3.1.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.1-11 3.1.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.1-11 3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.2-10 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance and Methodology .................................... 3.2-16 3.2.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.2-23 3.2.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.2-34 3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.2-38 3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.2-39 3.2.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.2-39 3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 3.3-1 3.3.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.3-8 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.3-17 3.3.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.3-17 3.3.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.3-22 3.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.3-34 3.3.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.3-35 3.3.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.3-35 3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 3.4-1 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.4-1 3.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.4-8 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.4-16 3.4.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.4-16 3.4.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.4-19 3.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.4-21 3.4.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.4-22 3.4.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.4-22 3.5 Geology, Soils, and Minerals ............................................................................ 3.5-1 3.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.5-9 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.5-13 3.5.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.5-14 3.5.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.5-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-iii 3.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.5-20 3.5.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.5-20 3.5.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.5-20 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 3.6-1 3.6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.6-1 3.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.6-11 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance and Methodology .................................... 3.6-28 3.6.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.6-31 3.6.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.6-34 3.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.6-35 3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.6-36 3.6.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.6-36 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.7-3 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.7-13 3.7.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.7-14 3.7.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.7-18 3.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.7-19 3.7.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.7-20 3.7.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.7-21 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.8-8 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.8-23 3.8.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.8-24 3.8.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.8-34 3.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.8-36 3.8.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.8-36 3.8.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.8-37 3.9 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 3.9-1 3.9.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3.9-1 3.9.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.9-2 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.9-10 3.9.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.9-10 3.9.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.9-12 3.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.9-13 3.9.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.9-13 3.9.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.9-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-iv 3.10 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.10.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3.10-1 3.10.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.10-3 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.10-7 3.10.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.10-9 3.10.5 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 3.10-15 3.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................. 3.10-15 3.10.7 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 3.10-15 3.10.8 References Cited ............................................................................... 3.10-16 3.11 Population, Housing, and Growth ................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3.11-1 3.11.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.11-2 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.11-4 3.11.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.11-5 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 3.11-7 3.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................... 3.11-7 3.11.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 3.11-7 3.11.8 References Cited ................................................................................. 3.11-8 3.12 Public Services ................................................................................................ 3.12-1 3.12.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3.12-1 3.12.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.12-2 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 3.12-8 3.12.4 Impacts Analysis ................................................................................. 3.12-9 3.12.5 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 3.12-11 3.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................. 3.12-11 3.12.7 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 3.12-11 3.12.8 References Cited ............................................................................... 3.12-12 3.13 Transportation ................................................................................................. 3.13-1 3.13.1 Transportation Setting ......................................................................... 3.13-1 3.13.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.13-6 3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................... 3.13-16 3.13.4 Impacts Analysis ............................................................................... 3.13-20 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 3.13-33 3.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................. 3.13-44 3.13.7 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................ 3.13-45 3.13.8 Cumulative Analysis ......................................................................... 3.13-45 3.13.9 References Cited ............................................................................... 3.13-45 3.14 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 3.14-1 3.14.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3.14-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-v 3.14.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ........................................... 3.14-4 3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................... 3.14-15 3.14.4 Impacts Analysis ............................................................................... 3.14-15 3.14.5 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 3.14-22 3.14.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................. 3.14-23 3.14.7 Cumulative ........................................................................................ 3.14-23 3.14.8 References Cited ............................................................................... 3.14-24 3.15 Energy Consumption ...................................................................................... 3.15-1 3.15.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3.15-2 3.15.2 Relevant Plan, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................. 3.15-4 3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................... 3.15-18 3.15.4 Impacts Analysis ............................................................................... 3.15-19 3.15.5 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 3.15-28 3.15.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................. 3.15-28 3.15.7 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 3.15-28 3.15.8 References Cited ............................................................................... 3.15-28 4 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ...... 4-3 4.2 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Aviation Only ................................................. 4-4 4.2.2 Alternative 2: Aviation Expansion........................................................... 4-5 4.2.3 Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity ............................................................. 4-6 4.3 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................. 4-8 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................... 4-11 4.5 References Cited ................................................................................................ 4-12 5 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Effects Found Not To Be Significant................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources......................................................... 5-1 5.2 Significant And Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ........................................... 5-2 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts .................................................. 5-3 5.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts .................................................................................... 5-4 5.5 References Cited .................................................................................................. 5-4 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Contra Costa County ............................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Dudek ................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Subconsultants ..................................................................................................... 6-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-vi 7 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................................ 7-1 APPENDICES A Notice of Preparation B NOP Comments C AQ-GHG Model Outputs D Bio Constraints Report – Byron Airport E Byron Airport Cultural Inventory F Checklist from Contra Costa County 2015 – CAP G Byron Airport Hazards Assessment H Traffic Report I Water Supply Assessment FIGURES 2-1 Project Location ....................................................................................................... 2-13 2-2 Project Site ............................................................................................................... 2-15 2-3 Development Area and Safety Zones ...................................................................... 2-17 3.1-1 Key Viewpoints .................................................................................................... 3.1-13 3.1-2a Visual Simulation.................................................................................................. 3.1-15 3.1-2b Visual Simulation.................................................................................................. 3.1-17 3.1-2c Visual Simulation.................................................................................................. 3.1-19 3.3-1 Field-Verified Land Cover Map ........................................................................... 3.3-37 3.7-1 Hazards Site Map .................................................................................................. 3.7-23 3.7-2 Wildfire Hazards ................................................................................................... 3.7-25 3.8-1 Creeks and Watersheds ......................................................................................... 3.8-41 3.8-2 Site Drainage ......................................................................................................... 3.8-43 3.8-3 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones .................................................................................. 3.8-45 3.9-1 Airport AIA & Compatibility Zones..................................................................... 3.9-15 3.9-2 Existing General Plan ........................................................................................... 3.9-17 3.9-3 Existing Zoning ..................................................................................................... 3.9-19 3.10-1 Noise Contours.................................................................................................... 3.10-17 3.10-2 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................ 3.10-19 3.10-3 Land Use Compatibility Criteria ......................................................................... 3.10-21 3.10-4 Airport Compatibility Criteria ............................................................................ 3.10-23 3.10-5 Noise Modeling Locations .................................................................................. 3.10-25 3.10-6 Proposed ALUCP Noise Policy Map .................................................................. 3.10-27 3.13-1 Contra Costa County Roadway Network Plan.................................................... 3.13-49 3.13-2 Transit, Bike and Pedestrian Facilities (Existing and Proposed) ........................ 3.13-51 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-vii 3.13-3 Local Bicycle Networks (Existing and Proposed) .............................................. 3.13-53 TABLES ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts ..................................ES-2 ES-2 Reduced Intensity Alternative ................................................................................ES-29 2-1 Development Scenario ............................................................................................... 2-8 2-2 Agency Actions .......................................................................................................... 2-9 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Data............................................................................. 3.2-9 3.2-2 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ........... 3.2-12 3.2-3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 3.2-17 3.2-4 Non-Aviation and Aviation Construction Scenario Assumptions ........................ 3.2-19 3.2-5 Roadway Expansion and Water Infrastructure Construction Scenario Assumptions ........................................................................................... 3.2-21 3.2-6 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions – Non-Aviation and Aviation Uses, Roadway Expansion, and Water Infrastructure Installation .. 3.2-26 3.2-7 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions – Project Buildout ............................. 3.2-27 3.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Within the Study Area and Proposed Development Footprint ........................................................................... 3.3-2 3.5-1 Contra Costa County Inventory of Seismic Faults ................................................. 3.5-4 3.6-1 Six Top Greenhouse Gas Producer Countries and the European Union ................ 3.6-5 3.6-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California .................................................. 3.6-6 3.6-3 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 3.6-31 3.8-1 Watersheds Intersected by the Byron Airport ......................................................... 3.8-1 3.8-2 Well Completion Report Records on the Project Site and Vicinity........................ 3.8-6 3.8-3 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impairments in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ............................................................................... 3.8-7 3.8-4 Beneficial Uses of Waters within the Study Area ................................................ 3.8-12 3.8-5 Definitions of Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters ................................................ 3.8-12 3.8-6 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals ..................... 3.8-14 3.9-1 Comparison of Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Intensity Criteria and Caltrans Criteria ................................................................................ 3.9-10 3.10-1 Traffic Noise Level Measurements (Existing) ...................................................... 3.10-3 3.10-2 Traffic Noise Level Measurements (Existing) ...................................................... 3.10-4 3.10-3 Existing and Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise (dBA CNEL) .......................... 3.10-10 3.10-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................... 3.10-13 3.11-1 Population Growth Trends .................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11-2 Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................. 3.11-2 3.11-3 Comparison of Current and Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Residential Density ....................................................................................... 3.11-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 TOC-viii 3.13-1 Project Trip Generation for Byron Airport Development Program .................... 3.13-18 3.13-2 Summary of Project’s Home-Based-Work VMT per Employee ........................ 3.13-24 3.13-3 Cumulative VMT (Total Employment VMT) .................................................... 3.13-25 3.13-4 Project Access Level of Service ......................................................................... 3.13-26 3.13-5 Project Access Queuing Summary - Existing plus Project ................................. 3.13-29 3.13-6 Project Access Queuing Summary – Future Year 2040 plus Project ................. 3.13-30 3.13-7 Existing plus Project Caltrans Off-Ramp Queuing Summary ............................ 3.13-31 3.13-8 Future Year 2040 plus Project Caltrans Off-Ramp Queuing Summary ............. 3.13-32 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures .............. 3.13-34 3.13-10 VMT Reduction Summary .................................................................................. 3.13-42 3.13-11 Project VMT with Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 3.13-44 3.14-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ..................................................................... 3.14-20 3.15-1 Compliance Schedule by Engine Model Year for Vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 26,000 Pounds or Less .................................................. 3.15-11 3.15-2 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment................................................ 3.15-22 4-1 Reduced Intensity Alternative .................................................................................... 4-7 4-2 Environmental Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................. 4-8 7-1 Comments Received on the Draft EIR ....................................................................... 7-1 Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-1 CHAPTER ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION Contra Costa County (County) has prepared this Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to inform the community, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested agencies and organizations, of the potential significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) and the mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or substantially reduce those effects. This Draft Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). ES.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Table ES-1 presents a summary of the potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the project, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact after the implementation of the mitigation measures. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-2 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Aesthetics Impact 3.1-2: The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings MM-AES-1: Non-aviation development shall be subject to the following design requirements: • Long facades should be designed with building articulation and landscaping to break them up into smaller visual elements, avoiding public views of uninterrupted blank walls. • For industrial and warehouse buildings, bright reflective colors and materials shall not be allowed. Paint colors should be earth tones. Natural finishes such as brick or stone facades may also be incorporated into the design. • Project lighting shall comply with the policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Loading areas should be located and designed to minimize direct exposure to public views. • Structures and parking lots located on the eastern edge of the airport property shall incorporate landscaping to screen public views. The type, quantity and placement of plant material should be selected for its compatibility with airport uses (tree heights, plants that are not wildlife attractants), as well as structure, texture, color and compatibility with the building design and materials. The design of non-aviation development shall be reviewed by both Department of Conservation and Development and Airports Division staff prior to issuance of building permits for conformance with these standards. Aviation uses shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff. Less than significant Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. MM-AQ-1, below MM-AQ-2, below Significant and unavoidable Impact 3.2-2: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. MM-AQ-1: The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: • 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. Significant and unavoidable ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-3 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • 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 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, 13 CCR 2485). 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 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 lead agency 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. MM-AQ-2: The project shall implement the following measures for all facilities in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. To the extent that the measures below are addressed by MM-AQ-4 as part of any health risk assessment that is prepared, the measures in MM-AQ-4 shall take precedence. • Only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the project site. • Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-4 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. • Prior to tenant occupancy, the facility operator shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. • The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24 shall be provided. In addition, the buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future. • Conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the facility operator during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. Impact 3.2-3: The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. MM-AQ-3: For non-aviation facilities with construction proposed within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors, a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared to assess exposure of existing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) during project construction. If the health risk assessment determines that cancer and non-cancer impacts would be less than significant, no additional measures are needed. Alternatively, the results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than-significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: • Portable equipment used during construction shall be powered by electricity from the grid instead of diesel-powered generators, to the maximum amount feasible. • Equip heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or better diesel engines, except where Tier 4 Interim or better engines are not available for specific construction equipment. Contra Costa County shall verify and approve all pieces within the construction fleet that would not meet Tier 4 Interim standards. At a minimum, Tier 3 engines will be required if Tier 4 engines are not available. Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-5 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • All conditions of approval/mitigations shall be placed on construction drawings and part of any construction contract. Physical copies of the plans shall be available at the on-site job trailer. MM-AQ-4: For non-aviation uses, a health risk assessment of long-term operations shall be prepared if the proposed facility is within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors and would result in any of the following: • Accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, or • Accommodate more than 40 trucks with operating TRUs per day, or • Where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week. Results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than-significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: • Idling of diesel equipment of any type shall be strictly prohibited at the premises. The property facility operator shall inform all business partners, visitors, etc., of the Zero-Idling Rule in effect for the subject property and area streets. Highly visible signs prohibiting idling shall be posted at each entrance and exist. Violators of this zero-idling rule are subject to fines and or criminal charges. • Within 90 days of occupying the space, the facility operator shall submit to the Airports Division and the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) the first of an annual inventory of all equipment that generates criteria pollutant, TACs, and GHG emissions operated at the subject location throughout the life of the project up to year 2035. The equipment inventory shall include the year, make, and model of the equipment that was used in the previous year, including annual hours of operation for each piece of equipment, including but not limited to heavy-duty drayage and non-drayage trucks, yard equipment, bulk material handling equipment (forklifts, etc.), and any other type of material handling equipment. The purpose of the inventory is to track emissions/equipment and to assist in technology reviews. • The facility operator shall purchase/lease or otherwise acquire zero-emission vehicles/equipment (including: light/heavy duty trucks, drayage equipment, forklifts and generators) when commercially available as the attrition of gasoline/diesel equipment ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-6 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation occurs. The property facility operator is encouraged to utilize any or all of the funding opportunities offered by CARB and other available programs. The availability of zero- emission equipment shall be determined in a joint effort between the Airports Division and the facility operator as part of an annual technology review. • The facility operator shall adhere to the findings of the annual technologies review for reducing air emissions as part of the County Climate Action Plan and long-range sustainability goals, which encourage property owners and tenants to use cleaner technologies over time as they become available. A priority goal of the review shall be the replacement of older equipment in operation at the subject site that generates the highest levels of criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions. The equipment to be replaced shall be determined based on the level of emissions and cost-effectiveness of the emissions reduction (e.g., biggest reduction per dollar), and identify implementation mechanisms including, but not limited to, tenant-based improvements, grant programs, or a combination thereof, based on regulatory requirements and the feasibility analysis performed by the Airports Division. The Carl Moyer Program, or similar cost-effectiveness criteria, shall be used to assess the economic feasibility (e.g., cost effectiveness) of the identified new technologies. Zero-emission equipment employed pursuant to this mitigation may be replaced by other technologies or other types of equipment as long as the replacement equipment achieves the same or greater criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emission reductions as compared to the equipment identified as part of the technology review. • Every California based TRU and electronic-TRU (E-TRU) operational at the site must be registered with the Air Resource Board Equipment Registration and shall be labeled with a CARB Identification Number. Facility operators handling TRUs shall install charging infrastructure and encourage E-TRUs on site, and require those non-E-TRUs to plug in while stationary at the facility. • Prior to occupancy the facility operator shall demonstrate compliance with all newly adopted Ordinances/Statutes/Plans and requirements passed by all responsible agencies in relation to traffic, diesel emissions and air quality improvement measures. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-7 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Biological Resources Impact 3.3-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MM-BIO-1: a. Swainson’s Hawk Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15–September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below). During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent can apply to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non-native trees, lost to covered activities will be mitigated by the project proponent according to the requirements below. Mitigation for Loss of Nest Trees The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-8 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. AND either 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: • Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. • Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. • Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. • Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-9 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). • Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. • Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Nesting Bird Avoidance. As part of the pre-construction survey for Swainson’s Hawk, the qualified biologist approved by USFWS/CDFW shall also survey for native nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer from the nests shall be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and planned construction activity. Consultation with CDFW may be required to determine appropriate buffer distances. These nests shall be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist. Habitat (i.e., trees and brush) may not be removed during the breeding bird season. MM-BIO-2: Western Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. In accordance with Conditions on Covered Activities described in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (CDFG 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-10 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. Surveys will take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1– January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (CDFG 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-11 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM-BIO-3: California Red-Legged Frog Minimization. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including, photos and a breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individual California red-legged frogs within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individual California red -legged frogs. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individual California red-legged frogs from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-4: California Tiger Salamander Minimization. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including photos and breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individual California Tiger Salamander, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California tiger salamanders within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-12 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation translocate individual California tiger salamanders within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-5: Rare Plant Surveys and Mitigation. Prior to commencement of any project- related construction activity, Contra Costa County shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct protocol-level special-status plant surveys of the undisturbed areas of the project site for alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), spiny- sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), diamond-petaled poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). As part of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) application for coverage, the surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming periods. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the plant species in the region. These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with 2009 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey protocols. If any special-status plant species are observed during surveys, the project proponent shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity (i.e., East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy) of the construction schedule so as to allow the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity the option to salvage the population(s) in accordance with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 3.10 (Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable) described below. Additionally, the project proponent shall confirm with the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity that the take limits of the HCP/NCCP for the species identified have not been reached. The following special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site are covered by the HCP/NCCP: brittlescale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, and recurved larkspur. Alkali milk-vetch, diamond-petaled poppy, and Contra Costa goldfields are analyzed ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-13 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation in the HCP/NCCP but are “no take” species, and avoidance is the only acceptable mitigation measure. Congdon’s tarplant and spiny-sepaled button-celery are not addressed in the HCP/NCCP. For these plants, mitigation shall consist of, in order of preference, (1) avoidance, (2) salvage and transplant as described below, or (3) off-site habitat enhancement or restoration in consultation with CDFW. Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable (Covered Species) Perennial Covered Plants Where impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by approved covered activities, the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity has the option of salvaging the covered plants. Salvage methods for perennial species shall be tested for whole individuals, cuttings, and seeds. Salvage measures shall include the evaluation of techniques for transplanting as well as germinating seed in garden or greenhouse and then transplanting to suitable habitat sites in the field. Techniques shall be tested for each species, and appropriate methods shall be identified through research and adaptive management. Where plants are transplanted or seeds distributed to the field they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. Field trials shall be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different methods and determine the best methods to establish new populations. New populations shall be located such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting within the preserves shall only minimally disturb existing native vegetation and soils. Supplemental watering may be provided as necessary to increase the chances of successful establishment, but must be removed following initial population establishment. See also All Covered Plants, below. Annual Covered Plants For annual covered plants, mature seeds shall be collected from all individuals for which impacts cannot be avoided (or if the population is large, a representative sample of individuals). If storage is necessary, seed storage studies shall be conducted to determine ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-14 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation the best storage techniques for each species. If needed, studies shall be conducted on seed germinated and plants grown to maturity in garden or greenhouse to propagate larger numbers of seed. Seed propagation methods shall ensure that genetic variation is not substantially affected by propagation (i.e., selection for plants best adapted to cultivated conditions). Field studies shall be conducted through the Adaptive Management Program to determine the efficacy and best approach to dispersal of seed into suitable habitat. Where seeds are distributed to the field, they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. If seed collection methods fail (e.g., due to excessive seed predation by insects), alternative propagation techniques shall be necessary. See also All Covered Plants, below. All Covered Plants All salvage operations shall be conducted by the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity. To ensure enough time to plan salvage operations, project proponents shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity of their schedule for removing the covered plant population. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity may conduct investigations into the efficacy of salvaging seeds from the soil seed bank for both perennial and annual species. The soil seed bank may add to the genetic variability of the population. Covered species may be separated from the soil though garden/greenhouse germination or other appropriate means. Topsoil taken from impact sites shall not be distributed into preserves because of the risk of spreading new non-native and invasive plants to preserves. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity will transplant new populations such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting or seeding “receptor” sites (i.e., habitat suitable for establishing a new population) should be carefully selected on the basis of physical, biological, and logistical considerations (Fiedler and Laven 1996); some examples of these are listed below: • Historic range of the species. • Soil type. • Soil moisture. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-15 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Topographic position, including slope and aspect. • Site hydrology. • Mycorrhizal associates (this may be important for Mount Diablo manzanita). • Presence or absence of typical associated plant species. • Presence or absence of herbivores or plant competitors. • Site accessibility for establishment, monitoring, and protection from trampling by cattle or trail users. MM-BIO-8: San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/ CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1999). Preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens will be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys will be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den will be monitored for 3 days by a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. • Unoccupied dens should be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-16 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately. The den will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. • If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den will be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances will be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities will occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens will be at least 50 feet and will be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens will be at least 100 feet and will be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. MM-BIO-9, below. MM-BIO-10, below. Impact 3.3-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MM-BIO-6: a. Wetlands and Waters of the United States or State. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County (County) shall retain a qualified biologist or wetland scientist to prepare a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to determine the extent of potentially jurisdictional features within the project disturbance area. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States or waters of the state shall require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the form of a Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-17 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the form of a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such permits typically include measures to avoid and minimize or mitigate impacts. Where avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands or waters is not feasible, replacement of resources is required in the form of restoration or creation. The project shall seek coverage under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) for impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands. If neither avoidance nor coverage under the HCP/NCCP is feasible, the County shall comply with the requirements of the 404 permit coverage for on- or off-site mitigation, at a replacement ration of no less than 1:1. b. Brushy Creek Setback. Per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP and Contra Costa County General Plan policy, a development setback of 75 feet from Brushy Creek (measured from top of bank) is required. Note that a lesser setback (for an area less than 300 linear feet) may be approved in consultation with the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-7: Alkali Grassland Avoidance and Mitigation. A portion of the aviation development area, adjacent to the existing facilities, includes alkali grassland. Ultimate development of this site shall require either avoidance, or establishment of like alkali grassland outside of the development area, which shall be made under consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Because this area is relatively disturbed, is isolated from similar habitat, and is maintained on an on-going basis by airport staff, it does not represent an exemplary patch of alkali grassland. Mitigation ratios for impacts to alkali grassland will be determined in consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-9: Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Covered Shrimp Preconstruction Survey, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having suitable shrimp habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of covered shrimp and/or habitat features and evaluate use by listed shrimp in accordance with modified USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1996b). Project proponents are required to conduct ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-18 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation USFWS protocol surveys in 1 year (rather than 2) to determine presence or absence of listed shrimp species. If covered shrimp are absent from the site, there are no further requirements related to covered shrimp. If covered shrimp are present, the following avoidance and minimization and construction monitoring measures are required. To the maximum extent practicable, impacts on occupied habitat of covered shrimp will be avoided by implementing the following measures based on existing mitigation standards (USFWS 1996a). • If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, establish a buffer (described below) from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp. Alternatively, at the request of the project proponent, representatives of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and USFWS may conduct site visits to inspect the particular characteristics of specific project sites and may approve reductions of the buffer. Buffer reductions may be approved for all or portions of the site whenever reduced setbacks will maintain the hydrology of the seasonal wetland and achieve the same or greater habitat values as would be achieved by the original buffer. • Activities inconsistent with the maintenance of seasonal wetlands within the buffers and disturbance of the on-site watershed will be prohibited. Inconsistent activities include altering existing topography; placing new structures within the buffers; dumping, burning, and/or burying garbage or any other wastes or fill materials; building new roads or trails; removing or disturbing existing native vegetation; installing storm drains; and using pesticides or other toxic chemicals. • Filling of seasonal wetlands, if unavoidable, will be delayed until pools are dry and samples from the top 4 inches of wetland soils are collected. Soil collection will be sufficient to include a representative sample of plant and animal life present in the wetland by incorporating seeds, cysts, eggs, spores, and similar inocula. The amount of soil collected will be determined by the size of the wetland filled and the variation in physical and biological conditions within the wetland. The number and size of samples will be sufficient to capture this variation. For very small wetlands it may be most cost effective to simply collect all topsoil. These samples will be ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-19 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation provided to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy so that the soil can be translocated to suitable habitat within the inventory area unoccupied by covered shrimp or used to inoculate newly created seasonal wetlands on preserve lands. • Seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp that are filled will be offset by preserving or acquiring seasonal wetlands occupied by the covered shrimp species and restoring habitat suitable for the covered shrimp species in accordance with Conservation Measure 3.8. Such mitigation will supersede requirements for mitigation of impacts on wetland habitat when covered species are present. If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, project proponents will establish a buffer from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied (or assumed to be occupied) by covered shrimp. This buffer zone will be determined in the field by the biologists as the immediate watershed feeding the seasonal wetland or a minimum of 50 feet, whichever is greater. Buffers will be marked by brightly colored fencing or flagging throughout the construction process. Activities will be prohibited within this buffer in accordance with the minimization measure above. Construction personnel will be trained to avoid affecting shrimp. A qualified biologist approved by USFWS will inform all construction personnel about the life history of covered shrimp, the importance of avoiding their habitat, and the terms and conditions of the HCP/NCCP related to avoiding and minimizing impacts on covered shrimp. MM-BIO-10. Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit Coverage and Take Authorization. Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, the project proponent shall obtain permit coverage under the HCP/NCCP. The applicant will receive take authorization under the County’s incidental take permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (permit number: TE 160958-0) and the County’s incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issued pursuant to California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 2835 (permit number 2835-2007-01-03). The project proponent shall comply with all applicable HCP/NCCP requirements, including, but not limited to, submitting a complete HCP/NCCP application package (see Chapter 6.2 of the HCP/NCCP), complying with applicable ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-20 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures (see Chapter 6.4 of the HCP/NCCP), and paying the HCP/NCCP development fee (see Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP). Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees as detailed in the approved HCP/NCCP application package will be paid. However, rather than pay applicable fees, the County may choose to mitigate impacts from future development at the Byron Airport by implementing an avoidance and preservation program in and around the airport property as detailed in the HCP/NCCP. Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, and in accordance with the approved HCP/NCCP application package, a construction monitoring plan shall be submitted to CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for review and approval in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. Impact 3.3-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. MM-BIO-6, above. Less than significant Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1: The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 MM-CUL-1: Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Prior to commencement of any construction activities involving ground disturbance, Contra Costa County, a qualified archaeologist, representatives from interested Native American Tribes, and the construction contractor shall be invited to meet or otherwise discuss by conference call the project site’s archaeological sensitivity and determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. Given the present disturbed condition in some locations surrounding existing airport facilities, areas of elevated potential for encountering unanticipated resources should be considered those within 500 feet of the historic-era corral and Brushy Creek, and no deeper than 4 feet below the present ground surface. An archaeological monitor and a monitor from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in these areas, after which the monitoring frequency shall be reduced to periodic spot-checks elsewhere. The monitoring Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-21 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation strategy shall be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) based on the results of monitoring within areas of elevated archaeological sensitivity and as recommended by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed, work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted or directed to another location until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. If the resources are determined to be historical resources or unique (pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), the qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations prioritizing resource avoidance, or, where avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. Impact 3.4-2: The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. MM-CUL-1, above. Less than significant Impact 3.4-3. The project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. MM-CUL-2: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), in the event of the discovery of human remains, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the Contra Costa County (County) Coroner/Sheriff shall be immediately notified. The County Coroner/Sheriff shall determine if an investigation is necessary. If the remains are determined to be Native American: 1. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. 2. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. 3. The MLD shall have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the County for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Less than significant Impact 3.4-4. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section MM-CUL-3: Should a potential tribal cultural resource (TCR) be inadvertently encountered, construction activities within 100 feet of the TCR shall be halted and Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (Department) notified. The Department shall Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-22 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. Any affected tribe shall be provided a reasonable period of time to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCR. Depending on the nature of the potential resource and tribal recommendations, review by a qualified archaeologist may be required. Implementation of proposed recommendations shall be made based on the determination of the County that the approach is reasonable and feasible. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. MM-CUL-4: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The County shall require the contractor to provide a cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be developed in coordination with an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, as well as culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The County will invite Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to participate. The WEAP shall be conducted before any ground-disturbing construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP shall include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and shall outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP shall emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and shall discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-23 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Geology, Soils, and Minerals Impact 3.5-4. The project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code MM-GEO-1: Prior to the approval of any building or improvement plans, a geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil or geotechnical engineer and submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development by the applicant for that project. The report shall address the specific approach to development. This report shall: (A) provide specific criteria and standards for identifying suitable imported fill materials; (B) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for the import of fill materials; (C) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for testing of soils on rough- graded pads and providing design measures to avoid/control damage to foundations and buried utilities; (D) provide criteria for placement of engineered fill; (E) provide further evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation; (F) provide detailed evaluation of the compressibility of the alluvial soils and forecast the anticipated amount of total settlement and timing of settlement to occur or placing a surcharge on the site to speed settlement; (G) provide California Building Code seismic parameters; and (H) outline recommendations for geotechnical observation and testing services during site preparation-, grading-and foundation-related work. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. Less than significant Impact 3.5-5. The project may have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater MM-GEO-1, above. Less than significant Impact 3.5-6. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. MM-GEO-2: If paleontological resources (i.e., fossil bones, teeth, shells, plants, or trace fossils) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large paleontological resources. Depending upon the significance of the find, the qualified paleontologist may simply remove and record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, additional work, Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-24 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation such as data recovery and extended specimen removal, may be warranted. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program for the project, which outlines where paleontological monitoring is required based on the location of the discovery, geotechnical reports, and construction plans. The qualified paleontologist shall also be required to curate specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a final written report to the repository and lead agency for review. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 3.6-1. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. MM-GHG-1: The individual development projects shall include the following transit-oriented and alternative transportation development design features to reduce the use of single- occupancy fossil fueled vehicles and vehicle miles traveled: • Provide preferred parking for zero/low emission vehicles. Bicycle parking and only the minimum amount of auto parking shall be provided to encourage alternative forms of travel. • Install conduits from the building(s) to the parking lot(s), to allow for installation of EV charging stations for vehicles. The proportion of EV parking spaces shall comply with the applicable CALGreen standards. • The proposed project shall promote ridesharing programs through a multifaceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles; designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles; or providing a website or message board for coordinating rides. • The proposed project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip- reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip-reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy would result in lower vehicle miles traveled reductions. Marketing strategies may include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options; event promotions; or publications. MM-GHG-2: The individual development projects shall include the following design features to reduce the demand for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions: • Obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for building construction, where feasible. Significant and unavoidable ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-25 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Provide the maximum amount of skylights to reduce electricity use associated with interior lighting. • All facility lighting shall meet or exceed the applicable Title 24 requirements. • All installed appliances (e.g., washer/dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers) shall be Energy Star rated or equivalent. • Design proposed buildings with: o Roof structure with additional load (defined as 1 to 2 pounds per square foot) capacity to allow the future installation of solar panels without retro fitting. The installation of solar panels would comply with the policy and procedures set forth in the Interim Policy for FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports (78 FR 63276). o Installation of an above market sized electrical infrastructure system (larger electrical room for future expansion, underground conduits (car, truck and loading dock) for future electrical charging systems, as well as additional conduits into the grid system for future expand-ability. MM-GHG-3: The individual development projects shall incorporate the following design features to conserve water: • Install low flow plumbing fixtures, such as faucets, toilets, and showers. • Utilize water efficient landscaping to reduce the usage of outdoor water on the premises. • Construct dual plumbing for both potable and recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation, unless determined infeasible by Department of Conservation and Development, Current Planning Division. Impact 3.6-2. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Potentially Significant) MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-3, above. Significant and unavoidable Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7-2: The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment MM-HAZ-1: Prior to initiation of grading and construction, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be in-place and consist of the following: Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-26 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Identification of areas of potential fuel- or oil-impacted soils on a site plan. • Protocol for identifying suspected contaminated soils (e.g., discoloring, odor, positive photoionization detector readings), utilizing personnel trained in recognition of contaminated soils/groundwater and certified with respect to Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (i.e., OSHA HAZWOPER training). • Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and to Contra Costa Environmental Health Department and local agencies, as needed. • Procedures for temporary cessation of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern. • Procedures for limiting access to the contaminated area to personnel with OSHA HAZWOPER training. • A worker health and safety plan for excavation of contaminated soil and/or groundwater. • Procedures for characterizing, managing, and disposing of potentially contaminated soils. MM-HAZ-2: Prior to development of the former agricultural areas identified in Figure 3.7-1, Hazards Site Map, soil samples shall be collected and tested for pesticides. Shallow soil samples shall be collected from the upper 0.5 to 1.0 foot of ground surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081A and arsenic by EPA Method 6010B. The soil samples shall be analyzed by a California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified laboratory. The pesticide sampling data shall be compared to applicable regulatory threshold levels such as the EPA Regional Screening Levels and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office Note 3 screening levels. The arsenic sampling data shall be compared to California typical background levels, such as those in the 1996 Kearney Foundation Special Report on Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. If the soil sampling concentrations, using the 95% upper confidence level or other statistical evaluation, exceed the screening level, mitigation shall include removal of impacted soil for off-site disposal prior to or during construction grading. A soil management plan, including a ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-27 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation health and safety plan, shall be prepared to properly manage the excavated soil and protect worker and public health and safety. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8-3. 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (c)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows. MM-HYD-1: Hydrology and Drainage Study. Prior to approval of individual development plans, a Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be prepared for the project to refine the size and hydrologic characteristics of drainage areas that intersect the project site, to estimate pre- and post-project flow rates and volumes under 10- 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events, and to provide recommendations for needed improvements. The Hydrology and Drainage Study shall quantify the capacity of the existing detention basin; determine whether or not it will be sufficient to serve future land uses; and establish the hydrology performance criteria and design standards applicable to potential future tenants, based on the destination of runoff (i.e., detention basin or Bushy Creek) and the degree of impervious surface coverage. The study shall be consistent with the hydrology performance criteria and design standards contained within the Contra Costa County Drainage Ordinance (Division 914), which include but are not limited to: • Drainage facilities shall be designed to convey a minimum (with sufficient freeboard) of the runoff produced by a) a 10-year storm event for facilities draining an area of less than 1 square mile, b) a 25-year storm event for facilities draining an area of between 1 and 4 square miles, and c) a 50-year storm event (and 100-year event without freeboard) for facilities draining an area of more than 4 square mile. • Finished floors shall be elevated above the base flood elevation of the one-hundred-year frequency storm runoff, as determined using the maximum potential development of the drainage basin or watershed shall. • Storm flows shall be collected and conveyed in a manner that avoids damage to any improvement, building site or dwelling which may be constructed as part of the project. • Detention basins shall be sized to contain without freeboard a one-hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff, unless it can be shown that a one- hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff can be safely passed through the detention basin without damage to the detention basin or any other property. Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-28 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Drainage capacity shall be provided that accounts for the full build-out of uses anticipated with the drainage area. The study shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (Flood Control District) for review and approval prior to finalizing individual development plans. In addition, the Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff to ensure any drainage basins proposed are consistent with Federal Aviation Administration aviation obstruction standards for avian attractants (e.g., requirement to drain ponded water within 48 hours of a major storm event). MM-HYD-2: Drainage Protection and Flood Control. For all areas of the project within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA]), Contra Costa County shall ensure that development proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 82-28), Contra Costa County Flood Control Ordinance, and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Development proposals in this area shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review and approval, and all requirements imposed by the department shall be satisfied. Such requirements may include floodproofing measures (such as elevating structures above the base flood elevation and providing the required freeboard). In the event development proposals involve encroachment onto or undergrounding of Brushy Creek, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained, per MM-BIO-6, and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department shall be provided with drainage studies and engineering reports sufficient to demonstrate that flood flows on Brushy Creek would not be impeded or redirected. For all development planned within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, subject to approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the developer would be required to file a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to process the change and shall obtain a FEMA modification of the SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Noise Impact 3.10-1. The project would result in generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area in excess of standards established in the local general. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified for Impact 3.10-1. Significant and unavoidable ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-29 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.13-2. The project would potentially conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). MM-TRAF-1: Project Site Design. The project shall provide site design features that facilitate pedestrian amenities and promote accessibility for on-site pedestrian movement and connectivity to various buildings or project components. As shown Table 3.13-10, this measure would result in a range of reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-2: Bicycling Facilities. The project shall provide adequate bike parking, change, and shower facilities on-site and improve accessibility for on-site bicycle movement as well as connections to immediate proposed off-site bike lanes along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. As shown in Table 3.13-10, this measure would result in a 0.63% reduction in VMT. Low stress bikeway proposed along Byron Highway can be made accessible to bicyclists from the project if bike routes can be planned along Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. MM-TRAF-3: Access to Transit and Expansion of Transit Network. The project shall provide access to transit and expand transit network. The project should work with Tri Delta Transit to add transit service in the project vicinity and provide connections with the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg and Oakley and other unincorporated areas. As shown Table 3.13-10, this measure was assumed to result in a conservative 0.1% reduction in VMT since there are no known transit service improvement or expansion projects near the project site. However, once transit coverage is increased, this VMT reduction could increase, however it would not reduce the Project’s VMT to a less than significant level. MM-TRAF-4: Ridesharing and Car-Sharing Programs for Employees. The project shall provide/promote/subsidize ride-sharing programs to the employees by utilizing approaches such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading/unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message boards for coordinating rides. Increasing the vehicle occupancy by utilizing ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, thereby decreasing the VMT. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing ridesharing and car- sharing programs to approximately 50% of the employees would result in a 2.5% and 0.4% reduction in VMT. Significant and unavoidable ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-30 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM-TRAF-5: Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle. The project shall provide an employer-sponsored vanpool and shuttle for use by employees for commutes to work, and bus/transit station. The vanpool and shuttle will be available to all employees; however, the calculations conservatively assume the program would be offered to/utilized by 50 percent of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing employer-sponsored vanpool/shuttle to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 6.7% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-6: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules for Employees. According to CAPCOA, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules would reduce the number of commute trips, thereby reducing the project’s VMT. Staggered start times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks are examples of alternative work schedules. Because retail and industrial/warehouse operations may require most of the employees to be on-site 24-hours per day, alternative work schedules may be feasible for a majority of the employees. The project shall implement a 4-day/40-hour work schedule for approximately 25% of the employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, with 25% employee participation in an alternate work schedule consisting of a 4-day/40- hour work week, a VMT reduction of 3.75% would result. MM-TRA-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. The marketing strategies would include new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications. Although the marketing would target all employees, a conservative assumption of marketing to only 50 percent of the employees was utilized in the calculation. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing/promoting commute trip reduction marketing to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 2.0% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-8: Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program for Employees. The project shall provide subsidized or discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to the employees. Although subsidized or discounted transit program would be available to all employees, the VMT reduction calculation conservatively assumes that the program would be available to and utilized by a maximum of 50% of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing subsidized or discounted transit program to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 1.0% reduction in VMT. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-31 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 3.13-3. The project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). MM-TRAF-9: Prior to the completion of the first non-aviation development project that would serve heavy trucks, the project proponent shall construct street improvements related to the project site, as follows: • Widen Byron Hot Springs Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8-foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from Byron Highway to Holey Road. • Widen Holey Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8-foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from the Airport property line to Byron Highway. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Armstrong Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. Significant and unavoidable Utilities Impact 3.14-1. The project would result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. MM-UTIL-1: Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses, or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that would increase water demand in excess of the current airport well system, Contra Costa County (County) shall take one of the following actions: a. Construct additional on-airport wells and water treatment facilities to support the proposed development. The project Water Supply Assessment estimates that up to four wells may be required to support buildout of the development program. The County shall obtain a water supply permit from the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water, a well drilling permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division, and all other applicable permits and approvals prior to development. b. Obtain an off-site potable water supply from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District or the Town of Discovery Bay. The County shall not permit development to proceed until the appropriate agreements or will-serve letters have been obtained from the chosen Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-32 Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation supplier(s) and plans for construction of necessary transmission lines have been approved by the County. MM-UTIL-2: Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that involve additional human occupancy, Contra Costa County shall take one of the following actions: a. Expand the on-site septic system to accommodate forecasted development wastewater flows. A permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division (CCCEHD)shall be obtained prior to development. b. Construct an on-site package wastewater plant. The plant design, which demonstrates adequate capacity for the development program, must be approved by the CCCEHD. Prior to approval of development, Water Discharge Requirements (WDR) must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. c. Obtain service from the Town of Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District. The County must confirm with the provider that there is adequate service capacity, and obtain a will serve letter for airport development. Plans for construction of a sewer transmission line to the off-site provider must be approved by all responsible County agencies. MM HYD-2, above. Impact 3.14-2. The project would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. MM-UTIL-1, above. Less than significant Impact 3.14-3. The project would exceed the current wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. MM-UTIL-2, above. Less than significant ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-33 ES.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ES.3.1 Alternatives Considered Three alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project/Aviation Only Alternative, were considered in Chapter 4, Alternatives. The No Project Alternative is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines that examines the environmental effects that would occur if the project were not to proceed. The other alternatives are discussed as part of the “range of reasonable alternatives” selected by the County. The alternatives addressed in Chapter 4 are listed below, followed by a description of each: • No Project/Aviation Only Alternative: This alternative assumes that 167 aircraft would be based at the airport within 10 years (compared to the current estimate of 105). Airport storage, including hangars and tie-downs, would be constructed to accommodate additional aircraft. New structures would be limited to 20,000 to 40,000 square feet due to limitations in water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. Development would occur on the “aviation reserve” site south of the main runway, as identified in the Project Description. No development would occur in the non-aviation area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. • Aviation Expansion: Under this Alternative, 11.8 acres would be dedicated to future airport storage (including hangars and tie downs). Up to 154,000 square feet of aviation related buildings would be constructed, within a project area of 11.8 acres. No development would occur in the non-aviation area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. • Reduced Intensity: The development footprint under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, but the intensity would be reduced. The floor-to- area ratio of logistics/warehouse/distribution would be reduced to 0.25 (from 0.30 in the proposed project). Office and commercial development would be eliminated and the potential acreage for those uses would be used for logistics/warehouse/distribution. The 11.7-acre parcel adjacent to the non-aviation development would not be acquired. The development scenario is shown in the Table ES-2, below. Table ES-2 Reduced Intensity Alternative Available Acres FAR Building Area (ksf) Employee/ Visitors (per ksf) Employees/ Visitors Persons/ Acre Non-Aviation Uses 46.6 Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution 21.0 0.25 229 1.0 229 11 Light Industry/Business Park 14.0 0.35 213 1.4 298 21 Total Non-Aviation Use 35.6 484 1,213 ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-34 Table ES-2 Reduced Intensity Alternative Available Acres FAR Building Area (ksf) Employee/ Visitors (per ksf) Employees/ Visitors Persons/ Acre Aviation Uses 23.5 Aircraft Storage 11.8 0.25 128 0.3 32 3 Aviation 11.8 0.3 154 0.5 77 7 Total Aviation Use 23.5 282 109 Total 58 723 636 Notes: FAR = floor-to-area ratio; ksf = thousand square feet. Total building area would be reduced to 723,000 square feet, as opposed to the proposed project amount of 941,000 square feet. Total employees and visitors would not exceed 636 at any given time, as opposed to 1,528 for the proposed project. ES.3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project/Aviation Only Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, none of the project objectives would be achieved by the No Project/Aviation Only Alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the Aviation Expansion Alternative, which would reduce potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and traffic and circulation. By reducing the number of truck traffic, vendors, employees and visitors, the Aviation Expansion Alternative would reduce impacts related to transportation, GHG emissions, and noise. This alternative would achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, but would not achieve objectives related to economic development and financial self-sufficiency. ES.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Section 15123 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the executive summary of an EIR to disclose areas of controversy known to the lead agency that have been raised by the agencies and the public. The County circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope and environmental analysis to be included in the EIR. A total of three comment letters were received during the NOP public review period. Copies of the NOP and the NOP comment letters received by the County are included in Appendix A to this EIR. The following issues were raised in the written responses to the NOP:  Transportation/vehicle miles traveled ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-35  Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources  Water quality ES.5 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY LEAD AGENCY Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved. With respect to the proposed project, the key issues to be resolved include decisions by the County, as lead agency, as to:  Selection of proposed project or feasible project alternatives.  Feasibility of the recommended mitigation measures.  Whether or not to proceed with the proposed project. ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 ES-36 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR Contra Costa County (County) has prepared this Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to inform the community, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested agencies and organizations of the potential significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) and the mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or substantially reduce those effects. This Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).1 As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to a proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. As the CEQA lead agency for this project, the County is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include providing information that establishes the environmental setting (or project baseline) and identifying environmental impacts, mitigation measures, project alternatives, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. In a practical sense, an EIR functions as a method of fact finding, allowing an applicant, the public, other public agencies, and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. Additionally, this EIR represents the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this project. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project. This Draft EIR is a Program EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. A Program EIR examines the environmental impacts of a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. In this instance, there are multiple individual projects that may be approved by the County in the further development of Byron Airport. However, it is the intent of this program EIR to describe the project site and the potential development in sufficient detail that subsequent activities can be found to be within the scope of this Program EIR, and no additional environmental 1 The California Resources Agency, in conjunction with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, recently prepared the 2018 Update to the CEQA Guidelines. The amended guidelines were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2019. Per Section 15007(d), a lead agency shall comply with new requirements in amendments to the guidelines no later than the 120th day after the effective date of the amendments, unless the lead agency amends their local procedures to comply earlier. Per Section 15007(c), a document sent out for public review shall conform to the guidelines in effect at this time. Therefore, this Draft EIR reflects the amendments approved on December 28, 2018. 1 – INTRODUCTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-2 documents need be prepared, per Section 15168(c)(5). Please see Chapter 2, Project Description, for information on the development program and the anticipated subsequent activities. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The original Byron Airport Master Plan (Airport Master Plan) was adopted in 1986, and the airport was opened in 1994. The Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005 and identifies a 20-year plan to support aviation activities at the airport. The 2005 Airport Master Plan also identifies potential development opportunities on airport property to increase airport revenue and achieve economic self-sufficiency. In 2015, the County identified a suite of proposed land uses for development on airport property, building on the framework of the 2005 Airport Master Plan. The uses included aviation reserve land uses, which would be directly associated with aircraft operations (e.g., hangar development, aircraft repair and maintenance), and aviation-related land uses, which would not be aeronautical uses but would be compatible with on-going aircraft operations (i.e., aviation-compatible uses). Examples of aviation-compatible uses include warehouse use and light industry. The County’s current General Plan policies, zoning regulations, and airport land use compatibility plan policies specific to the airport would not accommodate many of the proposed land uses. Therefore, the County’s Department of Conservation and Development, Department of Public Works, and Airports Division are working collaboratively to amend the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to enable on-site development in accordance with the proposed Airport Master Plan. Ultimately, the Byron Airport Planned Unit District (P-1) identified in the Zoning Code will be amended to identify additional aviation-reserve uses and aviation-compatible uses that would be permitted by right. The project would provide for both aviation development and non-aviation (airport-related) development. Aviation uses include aircraft storage, administrative facilities, instructional facilities, fixed base operators, pilot and passenger terminal improvements, cargo facilities, and aircraft repair and service. Non-aviation development includes a wide range of industrial, commercial, and office uses that benefit from proximity to the airport and the regional roadway network. These uses may include warehousing and distribution; light manufacturing; research and development; regional retail, including construction materials and home goods; service commercial; and offices. Local retail and food service may also be provided to serve the airport and local residents. 1 – INTRODUCTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-3 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS Notice of Preparation In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for public and agency review from September 20, 2017 through October 20, 2017 (included as Appendix A). The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the proposed project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. Three comment letters were received during the NOP scoping period. All of the comment letters were from public agencies: California Department of Transportation District 4, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Native American Heritage Commission. These letters are included as Appendix B of this EIR. The scoping comments are considered in the relevant resource sections in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting and Impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c), the Department of Conservation and Development held a scoping meeting on October 16, 2017. No additional comments regarding the scope and content of the EIR were received at this meeting. Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public Review This The Draft EIR is being circulated was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The beginning and end dates of the comment period are identified in the notice of availability for this the Draft EIR. Written comments may be addressed to the following were sent to: Daniel Barrios, Senior Planner Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94533 Email: Daniel.Barrios@dcdcccounty.us One or more public hearings will be held as part of the County Board of Supervisor’s consideration of the adequacy of the EIR. The public can review the Draft EIR and supporting documents were available for public review at the following address during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) or and on the County website: Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County 1 – INTRODUCTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-4 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94533 Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Report Certification Following the Draft EIR public review period, a the Final EIR will is be prepared that will includes written comments on the Draft EIR received during the review period and the County’s responses to those comments. The Final EIR will addresses any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to agency or public comments. Prior to approving the project, the County Board of Supervisors must certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the board has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the board. The board must also adopt findings of fact for each project impact. If the project includes one or more significant and unavoidable impacts, the board shall adopt a statement of overriding considerations explaining the decision to balance the benefits of the project against unavoidable environmental impacts if it approves the proposed project (see also California Public Resources Code, Section 21081). The Board must also approve a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan for all required mitigation measures (per California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6). 1.4 SCOPE OF THE DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Based on a review of the project and comments received during the NOP public review period, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared that addresses the following technical issue areas: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural resources • Geology, Soils, and Minerals • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population, Housing, and Growth • Public Services • Transportation • Utilities • Energy Consumption The evaluation of these resources is included in Chapter 3. Note that wildfire impacts are addressed in Chapter 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Recreation is addressed in Chapter 3.12, Public Services. Environmental issues related to agricultural and forestry resources were considered, but 1 – INTRODUCTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-5 it was determined that the project would have no potential for significant environmental effects. This is further discussed in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations. This EIR evaluates the direct impacts, reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts resulting from planning, construction, and operation of the proposed project using the most current information available and in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR recommends potentially feasible mitigation measures, where possible, and project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant adverse environmental effects. The alternatives chapter of this EIR (Chapter 4, Alternatives) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where significant environmental impacts would not occur. 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT FINAL EIR Executive Summary—Summarizes the elements of the project and the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project and provides a table that lists impacts, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation. Chapter 1, Introduction—Provides an introduction and overview of the EIR process and describes the intended use of the EIR and the review process. Chapter 2, Project Description —Provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, background information, project history, project objective s, and technical characteristics. Chapter 3, Environmental Setting and Impacts—Describes the baseline environmental setting and provides an assessment of potential project impacts for each technical issue area presented. Each section is divided into four s ubsections: introduction, environmental setting, regulatory background, and impacts and mitigation measures (project -specific and cumulative). Chapter 4, Alternatives—Describes and compares the proposed project alternatives to the proposed project. Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations—Provides information required by CEQA regarding impacts that would result from the proposed project, including a summary of significant and 1 – INTRODUCTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 1-6 unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and a discussion of impacts that were found to be less than significant and eliminated from further consideration. Chapter 6, List of Preparers—Lists report authors who provided technical assistance in the preparation and review of the EIR. Chapter 7, Responses to Comments—Lists all persons and organizations who commented on the Draft EIR, presents those comments, and provides responses to environmental issues raised. Appendices (included on CD at the back of this EIR)—Includes various documents and data that support the analysis presented in the EIR. Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-1 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Studies carried out in the late 1970s and early 1980s identified the need for one or more airports in Contra Costa County (County) to relieve the aircraft parking and operational pressures on Buchanan Field Airport in Concord, California. Continued urbanization in the western and central sections of the county made it impossible to develop a new airport in those areas. The County focused its attention on finding a site for a new airport in the less-populated eastern portion of the county. A site evaluation led the County Board of Supervisors to select Byron Airpark to provide aviation facilities for the residents in the eastern part of the County. An Airport Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were adopted in 1986. The intent of the Airport Master Plan was to guide development of the airport over a 20-year planning period. Byron Airpark was purchased in 1986 and a new airfield was constructed in the early 1990s. Byron Airport opened to the public in 1994. In 2005, the County adopted an updated Byron Airport Master Plan. In keeping with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines, the 2005 Airport Master Plan involves a 20-year planning period, with 2003 as the base year. Individual airport improvement recommendations are oriented to 5- (2008), 10- (2013), and 20-year (2023) planning horizons (Contra Costa County 2005a). The 2005 Airport Master Plan identifies several potential development areas within the airport’s boundary. Existing aircraft storage and parking occupies approximately 20 acres on the south side of the main runway. The 2005 Airport Master Plan identifies 35 acres for future aviation uses, generally located west of the intersection of the two runways, which is reserved for uses directly associated with the function of the airport, such as a terminal, hangars, fixed-base operator, aircraft maintenance, fueling facilities, and administrative offices. Approximately 86 acres is designated for non-aviation (airport-related) uses and is generally located east of the runways. This area is planned for airport compatible uses, such as light industry. This area may include leases to private entities, thereby providing a revenue stream for the airport. The remaining development area, approximately 30 acres, is reserved for low-intensity uses, including infrastructure and/or protection of the airfield. The 2005 Airport Master Plan identifies 814 acres as a biologically sensitive area for habitat management (Contra Costa County 2005a). The County identified a range of potential land uses that could be developed in the aviation and non-aviation areas, including commercial and industrial land uses. Many of these land uses (those not directly related to aviation activities) are not compatible with the current zoning or General Plan designation. In addition, development of these land uses is constrained by the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (Contra Costa County 2000). The County proposes to 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-2 update the zoning for the airport property and associated General Plan policies. The update of the ALUCP must be approved by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, which must then determine that the updated zoning ordinance and General Plan are consistent with the approved ALUCP update. As part of this process, the County refined the proposed development areas on the airport property at this time, eliminating 11 acres of aviation development north of the crosswind runway and approximately 40 acres of non-aviation development east of the runways. An isolated 10.4 acres designated for non-aviation development on Armstrong Road was also eliminated from the proposed development area. The proposed development area is discussed further in Section 2.6, Proposed Land Use and Zoning. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION Byron Airport is located in southeastern Contra Costa County (Figure 2-1, Project Location). The airport property consists of 1,427 acres, including 1,307 acres south of Armstrong Road and 120 acres north of Armstrong Road. The center of the main runway is located at latitude 37°49'52'' N and longitude 121°37'34'' W. The proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) site excludes the 120 acres north of Armstrong Road but includes an 11.7-acre parcel located next to the northwest corner of the airport (Figure 2-2, Project Site). 2.2.1 Setting Byron Airport is located on the western edge of the flat Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta agricultural lands, giving way to rolling hills and grasslands west of the airport. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner-of-war camp, is located north of the airport. Several rural residential uses are on the east and west sides of the airport. Nearby unincorporated communities include Byron, approximately 2.5 miles north; Discovery Bay 4 miles to the northeast; and Mountain House, approximately 4 miles southeast. Clifton Court Forebay is located less than 2 miles east, Bethany Reservoir is approximately 3 miles south, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 5 miles west of the project site. 2.2.2 Project Site The project site consists of the approximately 1,307-acre Byron Airport property south of Armstrong Road, and the 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of 1,319 acres. Byron Airport also owns an additional 120 acres north of Armstrong Road that is not part of the project site. The airport reference elevation (the highest point of the main runway) is 78.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project site elevation varies between 30 to 100 feet AMSL. The project site includes the existing airport facilities and areas proposed for development (referred to as the development area). Most of the 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-3 project site is reserved for habitat management. See Section 2.6 below for a description of the project site land uses. Byron Airport has two nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the west-facing “V” formed by the two runways and include aircraft surface storage, runway apron, hangars, and office space (see Figure 2-2). The majority of these facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. Existing Airport Facilities and Structures The primary runway, Runway 12-30 (northwest–southeast), is 4,500 feet long and 100 feet wide. The crosswind runway, Runway 5-23, is 3,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. Both runways have 20- foot-wide unpaved shoulders on both sides of the runways. Byron Airport can accommodate aircraft with wingspans of up to (but not including) 79 feet, and approach speeds of up to (but not including) 121 knots, and meets the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Reference Code criteria for all aircraft currently using the airport. The runways are equipped with runway lighting, and Runway 12-30 is also equipped with runway end-identifier lights. There are three taxiways. Two are parallel to the runways, and the third connects the aircraft parking apron to the other two taxiways. The aircraft parking apron is approximately 4 acres. Byron Airport does not have a control tower. Buildings include the 2,400-square-foot administration building (500 Eagle Court) and a 7,500-square-foot maintenance hangar (505 Eagle Court). The administration building is served by 18 parking spaces. A fuel farm is located southeast of the maintenance hangar. Accessory structures include a 300-square-foot pump house for fire protection, east of the intersection of the two runways. A small building on the north side of the airport (6900 Falcon Way) was part of the original Byron Airpark and is currently leased to Bay Area Sky Diving. Hangars are arranged in rows, starting northwest of the administration building. There is a 28-unit T-hangar constructed in 1996, two rows of portable T-hangars (39 units), and two executive hangars (10 and 12 units). The Byron Jet Center (760 Osprey Court) is located northwest of the executive hangars. Tie downs for based aircraft and transient aircraft are located between the hangars and the taxiways. A wash rack is located at the east side of the executive hangar row. Wastewater from the wash rack drains though an oil–water separator to a leach field located to the east, between the wash rack and Taxiway A. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-4 Utilities Electrical power is supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric Company via Holey Road. There is no natural gas service at the airport. The water system consists of a domestic well with a 4,000-gallon holding tank, booster pump, and chlorinator. The on-site water supply is non-potable. Drinking water is provided by bottled water deliveries to the airport. The sewer system consists of a 3,000- gallon septic tank and lift station that pumps to a leach field located southwest of the aircraft apron. Telephone service is provided by SBC Communications. 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124(b), the project description must include a clear statement of project objectives. The County has identified the following project objectives: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport- related land uses. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. • Provide a streamlined planning framework for future development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. 2.4 PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Every county in California that contains at least one public airport must prepare an Airport Land Use Plan (also known as an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan), per the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq.). The purpose of ALUCPs is to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports. ALUCPs achieve this by identifying land use types and intensities that are compatible with four key factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, provides guidance on airport land use planning in its California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011). The ALUCP for Byron Airport was adopted in 2000, with minor modifications in 2006 and 2016 (Contra Costa County 2000). The current ALUCP reflects the original 1986 Airport Master Plan for the East Contra Costa County Airport (now Byron Airport). The Byron Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005 (Contra Costa County 2005a). In addition, the Airport Layout Plan—required by the Federal Aviation Administration and a main component of the Airport Master Plan—was updated in 2016 (Contra Costa County 2016). The standards used in the current ALUCP for Byron 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-5 Airport are based on the 1993 edition of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Caltrans has updated this guidance document twice since that time, in 2002 and 2011 (Caltrans 2011). Thus, the current ALUCP for Byron Airport does not reflect the latest planning and forecasts for the airport, and is based on dated compatibility planning guidance. The Airport Layout Plan was updated in 2016, and this is not reflected in the current ALUCP for Byron Airport. The effect is an ALUCP that does not allow the type of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan, which would provide for the economic development and fiscal self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport would revise the policies for Byron Airport, consistent with current Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the policy framework in effect at Buchanan Airport (Contra Costa County 2000). The Countywide policies in the ALUCP for Byron Airport would not change. Key changes for Byron Airport policies are described below by category: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. Safety Several important changes would be made to Byron Airport’s safety policies. These are driven primarily by applying the latest Caltrans guidance to the airport. The current ALUCP for Byron Airport uses six “composite” zones known as zones A, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D. These zones combine noise and safety criteria to determine compatible land uses (Contra Costa County 2000). The proposed ALUCP update would identify six safety zones (1 through 6) consistent with the current Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. By using more carefully defined safety zones and by addressing noise compatibility separately, a greater range of development types would be allowed. In addition, applying current Airport Land Use Planning Handbook standards for non- residential development would increase the level of development that would be allowed, and thereby support the County’s goals for economic development at the airport. Noise The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport would separate the noise criteria from the safety criteria when determining compatible use. Noise compatibility is based on noise contours developed from forecasted aviation activity. The aviation forecasts for the airport remain valid and would not be revised as part of the proposed ALUCP update. Therefore, the noise contours would not change. The commercial and light industrial uses planned for the airport are not considered to be noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, separating the noise criteria from the safety zones would increase the range and intensity of non-residential land uses. Airspace Protection Airspace protection policies regulate development that may interfere with the safe navigation of aircraft, including physical structures or potential hazards such as dust, smoke, light/glare, and 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-6 wildlife. Minor changes would be made to airspace policies to reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan, including runway approach profiles. However, no significant changes would be made to the policies, and there would be no effect on allowable land uses. Overflight Overflight policies do not regulate land use but identify the areas subject to noise from overflight (as compared to noise from aircraft approaches and departures). The overflight area, along with airspace protection, discussed above, helps to define the airport influence area. The airport influence area includes a notification area (the area where home buyers must be notified of the presence of the airport), which is related to overflight. Overflight policies also identify areas where avigation easements (dedicating airspace rights to the airport) should be acquired. The notification area would be slightly larger in the proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport to reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan, but there would be no change to policies that would affect allowable land uses or future development. 2.5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The County General Plan designates the existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas as Public/Semi-Public (PS). The remainder of the airport property is designated as Open Space (consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property) (Contra Costa County 2017). The General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change. The 11.7-acre acquisition parcel would be redesignated from Agricultural Lands to PS. General Plan Policy 5-66 states, “Establishment of commercial, industrial or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed” (Contra Costa County 2005b). This policy would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on airport property if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Airport Master Plan for Byron Airport. Policy 5-77 would be updated to reflect the new compatibility zone designations (Zone B-1 would become Safety Zone 2) and the additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP for Byron Airport. 2.6 PROPOSED LAND USES AND ZONING The airport property is currently zoned Planned Unit District (P-1) (Contra Costa County 2005c). The P-1 zoning is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space areas while ensuring substantial compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-7 requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. The amended Planned Unit District will identify four separate development areas: Aviation, Airport Related, Low-Intensity Use, and Habitat Management. These zones are further described below and are shown in Figure 2-3, Development Area and Safety Zones (which includes an overlay of the proposed ALUCP safety zones). The most important change would be to the airport- related uses, which would allow non-residential development that is compatible with the ALUCP for Byron Airport. These uses would include light industry, warehousing and logistics, commercial, and low-intensity office. In addition, the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County would be rezoned from Agriculture (A-3) to P-1. Aviation A total of 23.5 acres is designated for aviation uses, located adjacent to the taxiways and runways. The aviation area is adjacent to a developed 10.5-acre aircraft storage area and 9.7-acre aircraft parking area south of the main runway (Runway 12-30). Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure (e.g., control tower, terminals), hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel (e.g., aircraft service and fuel, rental car facilities, pilots lounge, meeting facilities), and businesses that directly rely on aviation (e.g., agricultural aviation, aerial surveys and photography, air charter businesses, air cargo, just-in-time delivery). Non-Aviation (Airport Related) Approximately 46.6 acres of Byron Airport is designated for non-aviation. This includes 34.9 acres east of the main runway on the existing airport property, and 11.7 acres in the adjacent parcel.1 The 46.6 acres would support commercial and light-industrial uses that are compatible with airport operations and would benefit from being located at an airport, with access to Highway 4, Interstate 205, and Interstate 580. A variety of retail, service, warehouse and distribution, light manufacturing, and low-density office uses would be allowed. Low-Intensity Use The areas adjacent to the ends of the primary runway and within the “no build” area adjacent to the runway, approximately 31 acres, are designated as low-intensity use. No structures would be allowed within this area. Infrastructure improvements may be allowed within this area. 1 As shown in Figure 2-3, the total development area east of the main runway is 51.6 acres. However, 5 acres are constrained for stormwater infrastructure, for a net of 4 6.6 acres. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-8 Habitat Management Lands The majority of the project site, approximately 814 acres, is owned and managed by the County as wildlife habitat, consistent with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP 2006).2 The proposed project does not propose changes to habitat management lands. Development Reserve As noted above, the 2005 Airport Master Plan identified a potential development area larger than the one currently under consideration. The areas that have been removed from the aviation and non-aviation development area are identified as “development reserve” in Figure 2-3. There are no land uses assigned to this category, it merely denotes an area that was previously identified for potential development in the 2005 Airport Master Plan, but is no longer considered part of the proposed development program. Development Scenario Taking into account the land use areas described above and the proposed safety zones (see Section 2.4, Proposed Airport Land Use Plan Update), a preferred development scenario was developed. This scenario represents a reasonable distribution of compatible land uses on the airport property and forms the basis of the impacts analysis in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting and Impacts. The development scenario, presented in Table 2-1, assigns a percentage of available acreage to the various uses (e.g., light industry), and estimates the potential building area as increments of 1,000 square feet for those uses based on floor-to-area ratio. The number of people who may the site at any given time was then calculated using intensity factors from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the County’s General Plan. Table 2-1 Development Scenario Land Use Acres1 FAR Building Area (ksf) Persons per ksf Total Persons Persons per Acre Non-Aviation Use Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution (45% of acreage)2 20.97 0.30 274 1.0 274 13 Light Industry/Business Park (30% of acreage)3 13.98 0.35 213 1.4 298 21 Office (10% of acreage)4 4.66 0.40 81 4.0 325 70 Commercial (15% of acreage)5 6.99 0.30 91 5.7 522 75 Subtotal Non-Aviation Area 46.6 — 659 — 1,419 — 2 The 120 acres owned by the airport north of Armstrong Road is also identified as habitat management land. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-9 Table 2-1 Development Scenario Land Use Acres1 FAR Building Area (ksf) Persons per ksf Total Persons Persons per Acre Aviation Use Aircraft Storage (50% of acreage) 11.75 0.25 128 0.3 32 3 Aviation (50% of acreage) 11.75 0.3 154 0.5 77 7 Subtotal Aviation Area 23.5 — 282 — 109 — TOTAL 70.1 — 941 — 1,528 — FAR = floor-to-area ratio; ksf = thousand square feet 1 Note that the acreages shown for individual land uses are based on a percentage of the total available non-aviation and aviation development areas and should not be confused with a legal parcel or surveyed area. 2 FAR is based on comparable development, and falls within the range allowed by Table 3-4 of the County General Plan Land Use Element (Contra Costa County 2005d). 3 Persons per acre is based on an intensity of 725 square feet per person, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and comparable development. 4 An intensity of 250 square feet per person was used. 5 An intensity of 175 square feet per person was used, which would encompass large-scale (“big box”) retail. 2.7 REQUIRED AGENCY ACTIONS Table 2-2, Agency Actions, lists the discretionary actions that will be required to implement the proposed project. Table 2-2 Agency Actions Agency Potential Action Reliance on EIR Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Approval of General Plan Amendment Certify as lead agency Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Approval of Zoning Amendment Certify as lead agency Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Acquire 11.7-acre parcel for airport Certify as lead agency Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission Approval of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Amendment Rely upon EIR as a Responsible Agency Contra Costa County Airports Division and Planning Division Review and approve individual development programs Rely on EIR for any subsequent discretionary actions EIR = Environmental Impact Report The California Department of Fish and Wildlife may review the EIR in its role as a Trustee Agency under CEQA. No discretionary action is being requested of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at this time, but future projects may require California Department of Fish and Wildlife actions that could rely on this EIR. Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics) will review and may comment on the ALUCP update, but it does not have approval authority over the proposed project. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-10 2.8 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This Program EIR prepared for the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and ALUCP update is intended to streamline future development at Byron Airport. The County Airports Division retains discretion over all new development at Byron Airport, and reviews subsequent projects for consistency with the ALUCP and the Airport Master Plan. Certain non-aviation development proposals may also be reviewed by the Department of Conservation and Development. It is intended that this Program EIR would provide the basis for approval of those land uses permitted in the Planned Unit District. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), a subsequent project that is consistent with the use, overall building intensity, and geographic area analyzed in a Program EIR may be found to be within the scope of that EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. If a subsequent project would, due to the nature of the project or its location, potentially result in impacts that were not addressed in the Program EIR as significant, or would be substantially greater than those identified in the Program EIR, a tiered CEQA document may be prepared, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, based on the Program EIR. A subsequent tiered document should analyze only those project or site-specific issues that were not addressed in the Program EIR. The “Development Scenario” presented in Section 2.6, Proposed Land Uses and Zoning, is not meant to be a regulatory limit on the types or distribution of allowed development, but to provide a reasonably foreseeable project condition and to assist the County in determining if subsequent implementing projects would be adequately addressed by this Program EIR. 2.9 REFERENCES CITED Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Division of Aeronautics. October 2011. Accessed September 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/ airportlanduseplanninghandbook.pdf. Contra Costa County. 2000. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. December 13, 2000. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4307/Airport-Land-Use-Commission-ALUC. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Byron Airport Master Plan. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Concord, California. Prepared by Leigh Fisher Associates. June 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3958/Byron-Airport-Master-Plan. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation and Circulation Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation- and-Circulation-Element?bidId=. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-11 Contra Costa County. 2005c. Contra Costa County Zoning Map. Accessed September 2019. https://gis.cccounty.us/Html5//index.html?viewer=CCMAP. Contra Costa County. 2005d. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30913/Ch3-Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2016. Byron Airport Master Plan, Appendix D, Airport Layout Plan. June 2016. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/48449/Byron-Airport-Layout-Plan-Update-2016. Contra Costa County. 2017. Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Element Map. December 19, 2017. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30949/Land-Use-Element-Map?bidId=. ECCC HCP (East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association). 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. October 2006. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ depart/cd/water/HCP/archive/final-hcp-rev/final_hcp_nccp.html. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-12 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Project Location Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Byron Hot Springs & Clifton Court Forebay QuadranglesDate: 10/23/2018 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure2-1_ProjectLocation.mxd0 2,0 001,0 00 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 2-1 San Ramon San RamonDanville Moraga Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant H ill Antioch Oakley Concord Richmond Pinole Martinez PittsburgHercules S o n o m aCounty S o l a n o C o u n t y S a nJoaqu i nCounty C o n t r aCostaCounty A l a m e d aCounty 242 24 35 220 1 116 113 29 185 37 84 84121 82 92 12 4 160 680980 880 280 80 380 205 580 238 Proje ct Site 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-14 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 4/30/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure2-2_ProjectSite.mxdBYRON HW Y OSPREY CTEAGLE CTBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDCLIFTON CT HOLEY RD BRUNS RDARMST R O N G R D FALCON WAYVASCO RDNORTHBRUNS WAYProject Site Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: NAIP 2016; Contra Costa County 2017 02,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary Airport Property FIGURE 2-2 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-16 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Bruns Road7.7 acres 7 acres 1.9 acres 22.4 acres 6.3 acres 14.7 acres 5.6 acres16.1 acres 6.3 acres3.7 acres 4.7 acres 6.3 acres 4 acres 3.5 acres 2.2 acres 1.2 acres 1.7 acres 4.4 acres 1.7 acres 6.5 acres 10.4 acres 4.6 acres6.8 acres 1.9 acres 0.3 acres 0.5 acres 1.7 acres 2.3 acres 1 3.6 acres 2.4 acres 11.7 acres 5/23 1 2 / 3 0 6 6 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 º0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Runway CL Existing Building Restriction Line Safety Zones Aircraft Parking Aircraft Storage Non-Aviation Use Habitat Management Land Low Intensity Use Aviation Development Reserve Airport Airport Boundary Proposed Property Acquisition Counties Lake, River, Slough Canal Development Area and Safety Zones Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 2-3SOURCE: Mead & Hunt 2018Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 2-18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3-1 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS Chapter 3 discusses the environmental resources potentially impacted by the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project). Each resource section includes an environmental and regulatory setting, the standards of significance, the potential project impacts (e.g., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts), and mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts. To the extent that mitigation measures would themselves result in secondary impacts, those impacts are discussed, although not at the level of detail required for project impacts. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.0.1 Project Baseline According to Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time when the Notice of Preparation was published. This “environmental setting” will normally constitute the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Therefore, the baseline conditions for this Draft Final EIR, unless noted otherwise, are based on conditions that existed in September 2017, when the Notice of Preparation was published. The exact date of baseline information may vary based on the availability of data and the timing of certain studies. CEQA follows a rule of reason regarding data collection, and to the extent feasible, data will reflect conditions closest to September 2017 for the proposed project. 3.0.2 Cumulative Setting CEQA requires that an EIR assess the cumulative effects that could be associated with the incremental effects of a proposed project. Cumulative effects are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together are considerable or that would compound or increase other environmental effects. The cumulative impact of a project results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As indicated in the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide the same level of detail as project-related impacts. The discussion should be guided by “standards of practicality and reasonableness” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b]). Although project-related impacts can be individually minor, the cumulative effects of these impacts, in combination with the impacts of other projects, could be significant under CEQA and must be addressed (14 CCR 15130[a]). Where a lead agency concludes that the cumulative environmental impacts of a project, taken together with the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects are significant, the lead agency then must determine whether the proposed 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3-2 project’s incremental contribution to such significant cumulative impacts is “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant in and of itself). Cumulative Context To ensure that an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts is included in an EIR, CEQA allows the lead agency to use one of two methods. The first method consists of a list of past, present, and probable future projects, including those projects outside of the control of the lead agency. The second method consists of projections included in adopted local, regional, and/or statewide plans, such as a General Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1]). There are no currently proposed projects in the immediate project vicinity. In fact, as an airport, the location of Byron Airport is surrounded by agricultural land and scattered rural and light industrial development, and not urban development. Therefore, this EIR relies upon the projection method from adopted plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020 is relied upon as the overall source for future development, but individual resource areas may rely upon other projections. For example, the cumulative traffic analysis relies upon estimates of regional traffic growth from the Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model. The geographic setting of cumulative impacts may also vary with the resource. Cumulative air impacts related to criteria air pollutants, for example, consider the entire air basin for a regional context. Aesthetic impacts consider the viewshed that includes the project site, and water quality and hydrology consider the entire water basin. Each impact section discusses the method and geography used to assess cumulative impacts (see Sections 3.1 through 3.15). Since the publication of the NOP, the Costa Water District has approved the Phase 2 Expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which will increase the capacity of the existing reservoir to 275 TAF and, among other conveyance facilities, will construct the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline. The approximately 8-mile pipeline would connect the Los Vaqueros Transfer Facility (located between Camino Diablo and Vasco Road, northeast of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir) to the California Aqueduct (north of Bethany Reservoir). The proposed alignment is identified in the 2020 Final Supplement to the EIS/EIR for the Los Vaqueros Expansion Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2006012037). The proposed alignment would parallel Vasco Road and follow Armstrong Road along the west edge of Byron Airport, past the southerly property line of the Airport, before turning east and then south to connect to the California Aqueduct. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-1 3.1 AESTHETICS This section describes the existing visual setting of the project site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project). 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.1.1 Overview The project site is located in southeastern Contra Costa County (County), approximately 2.5 miles south of the community of Byron. The County General Plan recognizes scenic ridges, hillsides, rock outcroppings and the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system as important scenic resources within the County (Contra Costa County 2005a). The County General Plan designates scenic ridgelines that contribute to the rural feeling of the County’s communities and provide a scenic backdrop for the County’s developed areas. The nearest County-designated scenic ridgeway is approximately 7.2 miles west of the project site near the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Additionally, scenic waterways are designated by the County to ensure that preservation of the scenic character of these waterways is considered in the project review process. The nearest County-designated scenic waterway to the project site is the Clifton Court Forebay, approximately 1.9 miles east of the project site. The Byron Airport is situated in a rural area. The area has numerous wind turbines on the hill ridges to the west, some within 1 mile of the airport. The Clifton Court Forebay is located less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir is approximately 3 miles to the south, and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 5 miles to the west. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner-of-war camp, is located north of the airport. Rural residential uses surround the airport on the east and west sides. Other significant development in the immediate vicinity includes several high-voltage transmission lines within 3 miles to the east, west, and south of the project site and a railroad line running parallel to the Byron Highway. The community of Byron is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the airport. This small community is surrounded by agricultural lands and contains concentrated areas of single-family residential development, commercial development centralized along the Byron Highway, schools, churches, and wineries. Nearby residences are composed of large buildings with neutral exteriors that are located on large lots. Development is primarily located along Camino Diablo, Byron Highway, and Holway Drive. 3.1.1.2 Existing Project Site The project site consists of the Byron Airport property south of Armstrong Road, which is approximately 1,307 acres, and the 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of 1,319 acres. The airport owns an additional 120 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-2 acres north of Armstrong Road that is not considered part of the project site. Most of the site is open grassland, and 814 acres of the project site are reserved for habitat management and are therefore maintained in a natural condition. The airport is located on the western edge of the flat Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta agricultural lands and on the eastern edge of the Diablo Range. The site’s topography consists of low rolling hills, leveling out into flat, irrigated pastures on the east side. Two hills occupy the center of the site, extending up to 125 feet above mean sea level, 30 to 50 feet higher than most of the project site. The remainder of the site is mostly flat, and the elevation of the property is 30 to 80 feet above mean sea level. Hills surround the project site on all but the east and northeast sides. The hills located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the site range from 400 feet to above 900 feet in elevation. The airport contains two asphalt concrete nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. The primary runway, Runway 12-30 (northwest–southeast), is 4,500 feet long and 100 feet wide. The crosswind runway, Runway 5-23, is 3,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. Both runways have 20-foot unpaved shoulders. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated within the “V” formed by the two runways. These facilities include the administration building, the maintenance hangar, a pump house, the 6900 Falcon Way building, and aircraft hangars. The administration building comprises approximately 2,400 square feet. It is located at 500 Eagle Court, adjacent to the general aviation apron. This 60-foot by 40-foot double-wide modular building has a tan exterior and metal roof. The maintenance hangar, 505 Eagle Court, is a 75-foot by 100-foot two-bay hangar with a simple tan exterior and metal roof. A pump house (a 15-foot by 20-foot building) is located on the northeast side of Runway 12-30 (by Holey Road) together with a fire protection pond that serves as water supply for the airport. There is also an emergency pump station located southeast of the runway intersection that provides water from an underground 960-inch diameter pipe to supplement the fire protection pond. The pump house is a gray rectangular building with a flat roof. The 6900 Falcon Way building is located along Falcon Way towards the north side of the airport. It is one of the original buildings from Byron Airpark, making it one of the oldest at the airport. It is a tan building with a flat roof and an outdoor area with picnic tables. It contains a shaded open storage area on its southern side and is presently leased to Bay Area Sky Diving. The aircraft hangars are described by rows, starting northwest of the administration building. The first two rows, A and B, are vacant land reserved for future development. Existing buildings start with Row C. Row C is a 28-unit T-hangar constructed in 1996. Rows D and E are portable T- hangars that were relocated from the original airpark in 1994. Row F has two privately owned buildings on ground leases—a 12-unit executive hangar and a 10-unit executive hangar (which includes an owner maintenance hangar at the eastern end). The Byron Jet Center is located north 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-3 of the executive hangars. Hangars consist of tan rectangular buildings with metal roofs. A wash rack is located at the east side of the Row F buildings. Wastewater from the wash rack drains though an oil–water separator to a leach field located to the east, between the wash rack and Taxiway A. The majority of the project site, approximately 814 acres, is owned and managed by the County as habitat, consistent with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP details the implementation of an avoidance and preservation program and identifies the land that would be impacted, avoided, and preserved in perpetuity. This habitat preserve area is located to the south and west of the airfield. Seven land cover types exist on the project site. The majority of the site is made up of annual grassland habitat with urban areas that include the buildings, paved areas, and ornamental landscaping associated with operation of the airport. Annual grassland within the site is dominated by a dense to sparse cover of annual, non-native grasses and forbs. The remaining portion of the project site consists of annual and alkali grasslands interspersed with seasonal and alkali wetlands, as well as vernal pools. Seasonal wetlands are prevalent in the annual grassland in the northwestern and western areas of the project site. Alkali wetlands consist of seasonal wetlands within alkali grassland. The alkali wetlands generally consist of barren areas where water remains inundated for prolonged periods of time during the growing season. Several drainages also cross through the project site. These drainages appear to be intermittent in nature, carrying water only during the wet season. The banks of the drainages are generally dominated by non-native grasses. Brushy Creek travels through the project site from the southwest and exits the site at the northern end of the project site. This feature holds more water than the other drainages; however, it is still considered intermittent because it appears to dry during dry periods. Aquatic features within the site include numerous seasonal wetlands, alkali wetlands, swales, vernal pools, and drainages that are scattered throughout the site. Most of these features occur in the northern and western portions of the site. Within the project site, urban areas consist of roadways, runways, hangars, and other airport buildings. In addition, a major irrigation canal flows northward across the eastern portion of the site, and high-pressure gas and petroleum pipelines run diagonally through the middle of the site. Vegetation in these areas is sparse to absent, consisting primarily of cultivated plants in planters. 3.1.1.3 Views of the Project Site from the Surrounding Area The project site is visible from Armstrong Road to the north and west, Byron Hot Springs Road to the east, and Holey Road to the northeast. Views of the project site can also be seen from the Byro n Highway, approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site, and from Vasco Road to the west. Views from the north along Armstrong Road primarily consist of short -range views of annual grasslands, and minor long -range views of airport buildings and facilit ies. Views along Byron Hot Springs Road to the east consist of rural residences and grasslands in the 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-4 foreground, with minor views of airport buildings and facilities in the background. From the west of the project site along Armstrong Road, buildings on t he project site are barely visible, as they are blocked by small hills and grassland vegetation. Views from the west largely consist of grassy hillsides, flat grasslands, utility poles lining Armstrong Road, and open -wire fencing. Mature trees are scattere d across the landscape. From Vasco Road, minor views of airport hangar buildings are available to passersby when not obscured by the rolling hills. Key Viewpoints Key viewpoints are shown on Figure 3.1-1. The key viewpoints were determined based on publicly accessible areas that afford views of the project site and that may have a substantial number of viewers. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, there are no identified scenic routes or scenic vistas with a view of the project site. 3.1.1.4 Light and Glare Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments. Light that falls beyond the intended area of illumination is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare. Spillover light, which is light that illuminates surfaces beyond the intended area, is typically caused by artificial lighting sources, such as from building security lighting, signs, parking lot lights, roadway lights, and stadium lights on playing fields. Spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods at nighttime. Because light dissipates as it moves farther from its source, the intensity of the lighting source is often increased to compensate for dissipating light, which can increase the amount of light that illuminates adjacent uses. The type of light fixture determines the extent to which light will spill over onto adjacent properties and/or be visible from far away. Modern, energy-efficient fixtures that face downward, such as cutoff-type fixtures and shielded light fixtures, are less obtrusive than light fixtures that have been used in the past. The second type of light trespass is glare, which results when a light source in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows, metal roofs, or other highly reflective surface materials. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Cutoff- type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb, rather than reflect, light. The project site currently supports aviation uses. Existing lighting on the airfield includes medium- intensity runway lights, runway end identifier lights, and precision approach path indicators. Runways 5, 12, 23, and 30 are equipped with medium-intensity runway lights and Runway 30 is also equipped with runway end identifier lights. All runway lighting is pilot controlled by 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-5 activating the local airport radio frequency. Runways 30 and 23 are equipped with two-light precision approach path indicators on the left (3.5° glide path). Runways 5 and 12 currently do not have approach lighting systems. The airport apron, parking, and hangar area is illuminated with ramp floodlights that are photocell controlled. Existing buildings, parking areas, passenger boarding areas, and maintenance areas on the project site are illuminated with safety and security lighting. As the project site is located in a rural area, surrounding lighting is minimal. 3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal There are no federal regulations pertaining to visual resources that would apply to the proposed project. State California Scenic Highway Program California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. The Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. County roads can also become part of the Scenic Highway System. To receive official designation, the County must follow the same process required for official designation of State Scenic Highways. The nearest designated state scenic highway is State Route (SR) 680 from the Alameda County boundary to SR-24, approximately 19.8 miles west of the project site. The nearest portion of an eligible scenic highway is the segment of SR-4 from SR-160 near Antioch to SR-84 near Brentwood, which is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the project site (Caltrans 2017). Local Contra Costa County General Plan The Open Space Element of the County General Plan provides objectives, policies, and programs regarding aesthetics, including the following (Contra Costa County 2005b): Goal 9-A To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic, cultural/historic, and recreational resource lands of the county. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-6 Goal 9-2 Historic and scenic features, watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced. Goal 9-D To preserve and protect areas of identified high scenic value, where practical, and in accordance with the Land Use Element Map. Goal 9-F To preserve the scenic qualities of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River/Delta shoreline. Policy 9-10 In areas designated for urban development, the principles outlined below shall be applied in the review of development proposals. Policy 9-11 High-quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil erosion, downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative cover, high maintenance costs, property damage, and damage to visual quality. Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided for urban development. Slopes of 26% or more should generally be protected and are generally not desirable for conventional cut-and- fill pad development. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines shall be restricted. Policy 9-12 In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the county, developers shall generally be required to restore the natural contours and vegetation of the land after grading and other land disturbances. Public and private projects shall be designed to minimize damage to significant trees and other visual landmarks. Policy 9-14 Extreme topographic modification, such as filling in canyons or removing hilltops, shall be avoided. Clustering and planned unit development approaches to development shall be encouraged. All future development plans, whether large- or small-scale, shall be based on identifying safe and suitable sites for buildings, roads, and driveways. Exemptions to this policy are appropriate for mining, landfill, and public projects in open space areas. Policy 9-24 The appearance of the county shall be improved by eliminating negative features such as non-conforming signs and overhead utility lines, and by encouraging aesthetically designed facilities with adequate setbacks and landscaping. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-7 Policy 9-25 Maintenance of the scenic waterways of the county shall be ensured through public protection of the marshes and riparian vegetation along the shorelines and delta levees, as otherwise specified in this Plan. Policy 9-27 Physical and visual public access to established scenic routes shall be protected. Contra Costa County Zoning The airport’s current zoning is P-1, for planned development. This zoning is intended to foster a diversification of land uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space while complying with the General Plan and County code standards (Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance, Division 84, Chapter 66). Within the overall airport zone are four separate zones, aviation, airport related, low intensity use, and habitat management. Parcels surrounding the project site are primarily zoned for agricultural uses, including General Agriculture (A-2), Heavy Agriculture (A-3), and Agricultural Preserve (A-4) (Contra Costa County 2015). The County General Plan designates the project site’s land use as Public/Semi-Public (PS), with the area immediately surrounding the project site being designated Open Space (OS) on the west and Agricultural Lands (AL) on the east (Contra Costa County 2014). While the zoning ordinance does not specifically regulate visual quality, it provides a basis for lot coverage, setbacks, and building mass that affects the visual qualities of development. 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to aesthetics are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to aesthetics would occur if the project would: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project site is not visible from a state scenic highway and this impact is not considered further. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-8 The project is located in a largely rural, agricultural area. Therefore, the approach to changes in visual character and quality is based generally on a simplified version of the Federal Highway Administration’s methodology for visual impact assessment (FHWA 2015). This methodology focuses on the character and quality of existing resources, the degree of potential change, and the sensitivity and exposure of view groups. Visual simulations are used to demonstrate the degree of change in the existing environment from the key viewpoints. Light and glare impacts are considered in the context of existing regulations regarding lighting, and, similar to visual character, the degree of change experienced by the public. 3.1.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.1-1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Less than Significant) The project site includes areas planned for aviation, non-aviation , low-intensity, and habitat management uses. The 23.5-acre area identified for aviation uses is generally located west of the intersection of the two runways . The 46.6-acre area designated for non-aviation is generally located east of the runways . These two areas could be developed with aviation and aviation - compatible uses , respectively . The low-intensity area, approximately 31 acres, is reserved by the County for infrastructure and/or protection of the airfield. The habitat management lands are not subject to development. Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure (e.g., control tower, terminals), hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel (e.g., aircraft service and fuel, rental car facilities, pilots lounge, meeting facilities), and businesses that directly rely on aviation (e.g., agricultural aviation, aerial surveys and photography, air charter businesses, air cargo, just-in-time delivery). These uses would operate within buildings and structures that would be visually consistent with the existing buildings and structures on the project site and would support or be attached to the existing aviation uses on the site. Buildings would generally be low to the ground (typically 30 to 40 feet in height) and not very visible except from the immediate vicinity. Proposed land uses in the non-aviation area would include industrial, commercial, and office uses. These land uses would be subject to County zoning controls for height and bulk. As described above, the nearest County-designated scenic ridgeway is approximately 7.2 miles west of the project site and the nearest County-designated scenic waterway to the project site is located approximately 1.9 miles east of the project site. Due to distance and topography, the project site is not visible from these areas, and would not obstruct public views of these visual resources. The majority of the project site would continue to be preserved as a habitat management area or low-intensity use. Therefore, this area would remain as open grassland. New buildings and 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-9 structures would only be placed within the 70 acres designated for aviation and non-aviation uses near the existing airport development. The aviation uses and airport compatible uses that would be developed within this area would be consistent with the existing aviation facilities on the project site, including administration buildings, aircraft hangars, and aviation support buildings. Because the proposed project would not obstruct or interfere with views from or to a designated scenic vista, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.1-2. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Potentially Significant) The project site predominantly consists of annual grassland habitat with urban areas that include the buildings, paved areas and ornamental landscaping associated with operation of the airport. The Byron Airport Master Plan designates areas within the airport property for aviation, airport- related, low-intensity, and habitat management uses. The project would add 11.7 acres to the airport site and allow development in two areas on the airport: a 23.5-acre area identified for aviation uses, generally located west of the primary runway, and 46.6 acres designated for non- aviation uses, generally located east of the primary runway. The remaining areas would not be developed in the foreseeable future, including the habitat management lands. Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure (e.g., control tower, terminals), hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel, (e.g., aircraft service and fuel, rental car facilities, pilots lounge, meeting facilities), and businesses that rely on aviation (e.g., agricultural aviation, aerial surveys and photography, air charter businesses, air cargo, just-in-time delivery). These uses would operate within buildings and structures that would be visually consistent with the existing buildings and structures on the project site and would support or be attached to the existing aviation uses on the site. Development of non-aviation uses would predominantly occur along the eastern border of the site. These uses may include warehousing, light industrial, office, and commercial uses. The buildings would be generally consistent with the existing visual character of the site—large single-story buildings—and would not significantly change the visual character of the area. Visual simulations of potential building massing for the airport-related land uses are shown in Figure 3.1-2a, Figure 3.1-2b, and Figure 3.1-2c. The building mass is based on a 35-acre warehousing and logistics project (a development that is considered within the scope of this Environmental Impact Report). The potential building mass is shown from the three key viewpoints shown in Figure 3.1-1. Airport development would not substantially change the visual character and quality of the project site from key viewpoints 2 and 3. Viewpoint 1, at Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road, could be affected by the construction of large warehouses in the northeast area of the project site. The modeled height of the warehouses is 35 to 40 feet. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-10 Depending on the massing of these buildings, the impact to public views (public road adjacent to the airport) would be potentially significant. Impact 3.1-3. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant) Existing lighting sources on the project site include medium-intensity runway lights, runway end identifier lights, and precision approach path indicators as navigation aids on the airfield, along with lighting associated with existing buildings, parking areas, passenger boarding areas, and aircraft maintenance areas on site. The airport apron, parking, and hangar area is illuminated with ramp floodlights that are photocell controlled. The project site is located in a rural area with minimal lighting sources. Introduction of proposed land uses, including airport infrastructure, hangars, fixed-based operators, and businesses that support aviation and travel or that rely on aviation would increase lighting at the project site. Proposed industrial and commercial uses would include additional lighting sources, including parking lot and building lighting. The Federal Aviation Administration has established requirements for aeronautical ground lighting systems such as runway, taxiway, and approach lighting. Light spillage and glare from non- aviation land uses are hazards to pilots and tower personnel. Glare can impact the visibility of important aircraft navigation aids such as ground lighting, directional signs, and painted markings on the airfield. Furthermore, tower personnel can be impacted by directed glare, backscatter, and reflections that make it difficult to observe the area beyond the apron into the active airfield area. Light and glare impacts are addressed in the land use consistency policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. All proposed on-airport land uses are subject to review by County staff for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration criteria. Compliance with existing Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. 3.1.5 Mitigation Measures To reduce the effects of changes to public views, the following mitigation measure (MM) should be implemented. MM-AES-1 Non-aviation development shall be subject to the following design requirements: • Long facades should be designed with building articulation and landscaping to break them up into smaller visual elements, avoiding public views of uninterrupted blank walls. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-11 • For industrial and warehouse buildings, bright reflective colors and materials shall not be allowed. Paint colors should be earth tones. Natural finishes such as brick or stone facades may also be incorporated into the design. • Project lighting shall comply with the policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Loading areas should be located and designed to minimize direct exposure to public views. • Structures and parking lots located on the eastern edge of the airport property shall incorporate landscaping to screen public views. The type, quantity and placement of plant material should be selected for its compatibility with airport uses (tree heights, plants that are not wildlife attractants), as well as structure, texture, color and compatibility with the building design and materials. The design of non-aviation development shall be reviewed by both the Department of Conservation and Development and Airports Division staff prior to issuance of building permits for conformance with these standards. Aviation uses shall be reviewed by Byron Airports Division staff. 3.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of MM-AES-1 would reduce Impact 3.1-2 to a less-than-significant level. 3.1.7 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative context for the project consists of the surrounding areas visible from the key viewpoints. These areas include agricultural lands, wind energy development, and scattered rural and light industrial development. No other development is proposed within the key viewpoints. Although single-family homes and agricultural structures are allowed by right in the agricultural zones near the airport, this area has relatively little growth and these structures would be consistent with the existing visual character. 3.1.8 References Cited Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2017. “List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.” March 2017. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan – Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30918/ Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-12 Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan – Open Space Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30919/ Ch9-Open-Space-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2014. Land Use Map. April 4, 2014. Contra Costa County. 2015. Byron Airport Zoning Map. October 13, 2015. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Project. FHWA-HEP-15-029. January 2015. Date: 11/21/2018 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.1-1_Viewpoints.mxdB Y R O N H W Y OSPREY CTEAGLE CTBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDCL I F T O N C T H O L E Y R D BRUNS RDARMSTRONG RDFALCON WAYVASCO RDNORTH BRUNS WAYKey Viewpoints Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: NAIP 2016; Contra Costa County 2017 0 2,0 001,0 00 Feet Project Boundary Key Viewpoint FIGURE 3.1-1 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-14 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Key Observation Point 1 - Existing Conditions Visual Simulation of Proposed Project FIGURE 3.1-2a Visual Simulation Byron Airport Development Project EIRPath: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPS\GIS_MAPS\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-16 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Key Observation Point 2 - Existing Conditions Visual Simulation of Proposed Project FIGURE 3.1-2b Visual Simulation Byron Airport Development Project EIRPath: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPS\GIS_MAPS\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Key Observation Point 3 - Existing Conditions Visual Simulation of Proposed Project Visual Simulation Byron Airport Development Project EIR FIGURE 3.1-2cPath: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPS\GIS_MAPS\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.1 – AESTHETICS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.1-20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-1 3.2 AIR QUALITY This section describes the impacts on air quality and contribution to regional air quality conditions, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project). 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The project site is located in Contra Costa County (County), within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB encompasses all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties. Air pollutants are emitted by a variety of sources, including mobile sources (vehicles), area sources (hearths, consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy sources (natural gas), and stationary sources (generators or other stationary equipment). Some air pollutants need to be examined at the local level, and others are predominantly an issue at the regional level. For instance, ozone (O3) is formed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight by a series of chemical reactions involving oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gas (ROG) (also termed volatile organic compounds). Because these reactions have broad-scale effects, O3 is typically analyzed at the regional level (i.e., in the air basin) rather than the local level. On the other hand, air pollutants such as coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a potential concern in the immediate vicinity of the pollutant source because the pollutants are emitted directly by or are formed close to the source. Therefore, the study area for emissions of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and TACs is the local area near the source, such as in the vicinity of the project site, and the study area for regional pollutants such as NOx and ROGs is the entire SFBAAB. 3.2.1.1 Regional Climatology Air quality is a function of the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features that influence pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality. The climate of the SFBAAB is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is almost always present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the west coast of North America. During winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing more storms to pass through the region. During summer and early fall, when few storms pass through the region, emissions generated within the Bay Area can combine with abundant sunshine under the restraining influences of 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-2 topography and subsidence inversions to create conditions that are conducive to the formation of photochemical pollutants, such as O3, and secondary particulates, such as nitrates and sulfates. In the SFBAAB, temperature inversions can often occur during the summer and winter months. An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air that traps and concentrates pollutants near the ground. As such, the highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions (BAAQMD 2017a). The project site is located in the southeastern border of the County, at the edge of the Livermore Valley climatological subregion. Specific conditions for the subregion are described in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a). Maximum summer temperatures in the Livermore Valley range from the high-80s°F to the low-90s°F, with extremes in the 100s°F. Average winter maximum temperatures range from the high-50s°F to the low-60s°F, while minimum temperatures are from the mid-to-high-30s°F, with extremes in the high-10s°F and low-20s°F (BAAQMD 2017a). On the eastern side of the valley, such as where the project is located, the prevailing winds blow from north, northeast, and east. At times during the summer, a strong Pacific high-pressure cell from the west, coupled with hot inland temperatures, causes a strong onshore pressure gradient which produces a strong, afternoon wind (BAAQMD 2017a). During the winter, winds are typically light during the late night and early morning hours, and daytime winds sometimes flow from the south through the Altamont Pass to the San Joaquin Valley (BAAQMD 2017a). 3.2.1.2 Pollutants and Effects Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include O3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, PM2.5, and lead. These pollutants, as well as TACs, are discussed in the following paragraphs.1 In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. 1 The descriptions of the criteria air pollutants and associated health effects are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criteria Air Pollutants (EPA 2018a) and the California Air Resources Board’s Glossary (CARB n.d.) and Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control (CARB 2009). 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-3 Ozone O3 is a strong-smelling, pale blue, reactive, toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O3 precursors. These precursors are mainly NOx and ROGs. The maximum effects of precursor emissions on O3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. O3 exists in the upper atmosphere O3 layer (stratospheric ozone) and at the Earth’s surface in the troposphere (tropospheric ozone).2 The O3 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate as a criteria air pollutant is produced close to ground level, where people live, exercise, and breathe. Ground-level O3 is a harmful air pollutant that causes numerous adverse health effects and is thus considered bad O3. Stratospheric, or good, O3 occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it reduces the amount of ultraviolet light (i.e., solar radiation) entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Without the protection of the beneficial stratospheric O3 layer, plant and animal life would be seriously harmed. O3 in the troposphere causes numerous adverse health effects; short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes (EPA 2013). These health problems are particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide, which is a colorless, odorless gas. NOx plays a major role, together with ROGs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx is formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. In addition, NOx is an important precursor to acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The two major emissions sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections (EPA 2016). 2 The troposphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere nearest to the surface of the Earth. The troposphere extends outward about 5 miles at the poles and about 10 miles at the equator. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-4 Carbon Monoxide CO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon, or fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a nonreactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions—primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, which is a typical situation at dusk in urban areas from November to February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year, when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Sulfur Dioxide SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. When combined with particulate matter, SO2 can injure lung tissue and reduce visibility and the level of sunlight. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel. Particulate Matter Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Coarse particulate matter (PM10) consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and is about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-5 lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter and is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., from motor vehicles and power generation and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides, NOx, and ROGs. PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport adsorbed gases such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissue. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle and produce haze and reduce regional visibility. People with influenza, people with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death as a result of breathing particulate matter. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in particulate matter. Children may experience a decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5 (EPA 2009). Lead Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead s melters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emissions sources of greater concern. Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low -level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-6 Sulfates Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere and can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility. Vinyl Chloride Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer. Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations. Visibility-Reducing Particles Visibility-reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed of natural scenery, reducing airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5 described above. Reactive Organic Gases Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as ROGs (also referred to as volatile organic compounds). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil-fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. The primary health effects of ROGs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of ROGs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate health standards for ROGs as a group. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-7 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants Toxic Air Contaminants A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic noncancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years. Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short -term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC. Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. More than 90% of DPM is less than 1 micrometer in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair), and thus is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB n.d.). DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (soot, also called black carbon) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene (CARB n.d.). CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (i.e., DPM) (17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on -road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-8 Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000). Because it is part of PM2.5, DPM also contributes to the same non-cancer health effects as PM2.5 exposure. These effects include premature death; hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma; increased respiratory symptoms; and decreased lung function in children. Several studies suggest that exposure to DPM may also facilitate development of new allergies (CARB n.d.). Those most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects are children, whose lungs are still developing, and the elderly, who often have chronic health problems. Odorous Compounds Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. 3.2.1.3 Regional and Local Air Quality CARB, air districts, and other agencies monitor ambient air quality at approximately 250 air quality monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. The most recent background ambient air quality data from 2015 to 2017 are presented in Table 3.2-1. The Livermore–Patterson Pass monitoring station, located at 13224 Patterson Pass Road, Livermore, California 94550, is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the project site, located approximately 10 miles south of the project site. Air quality data for O3 and NO2 from this monitoring station are provided in Table 3.2-1. Because the Livermore–Patterson Pass monitoring station does not measure all pollutants, CO, PM10, and SO2 measurements were taken from the Bethel Island monitoring station (5551 Bethel Island Road, Bethel Island, California 94511, approximately 12 miles north of the project site), and PM2.5 measurements were taken from the Livermore–Rincon Avenue monitoring station (793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore, California 94550, approximately 13 miles southwest of the project site). The data collected at these stations are considered generally representative of the air quality experienced in the project vicinity. The number of days exceeding the ambient air quality standards is also shown in Table 3.2-1. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-9 Table 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Data Monitoring Station Unit Averaging Time Agency/ Method Ambient Air Quality Standard Measured Concentration by Year Exceedances by Year 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Ozone (O3) Livermore- Patterson Pass Road Station ppm Maximum 1- hour concentration State 0.09 0.099 0.109 0.057 4 5 0 ppm Maximum 8- hour concentration State 0.070 0.083 0.087 0.051 6 15 0 Federal 0.070 0.082 0.087 0.051 5 15 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Livermore- Patterson Pass Road Station ppm Maximum 1- hour concentration State 0.18 0.018 0.023 0.012 0 0 0 Federal 0.100 0.0189 0.0239 0.0129 0 0 0 ppm Annual concentration State 0.030 ND ND ND — — — Federal 0.053 — — — — — — Carbon Monoxide (CO) Bethel Island – Bethel Island Road Station ppm Maximum 1- hour concentration State 20 — — — — — — Federal 35 1.1 2.0 1.6 0 0 0 ppm Maximum 8- hour concentration State 9.0 — — — — — — Federal 9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Bethel Island – Bethel Island Road Station ppm Maximum 1- hour concentration Federal 0.075 0.0088 0.0047 0.0053 0 0 0 ppm Maximum 24- hour concentration Federal 0.14 0.0019 0.003 0.0035 0 0 0 ppm Annual concentration Federal 0.030 0.00101 0.00149 0.00154 0 0 0 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)a Bethel Island – Bethel Island Road Station g/m3 Maximum 24- hour concentration State 50 33.0 26.0 52.0 ND (0) ND (0) ND (1) Federal 150 31.1 25.5 52.1 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) ND (0) g/m3 Annual concentration State 20 ND ND ND — — — Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)a Livermore – Rincon Avenue Station g/m3 Maximum 24- hour concentration Federal 35 31.1 22.3 41.5 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (2) g/m3 Annual concentration State 12 8.8 7.5 8.4 — — — Federal 12.0 8.7 7.4 8.4 — — — Sources: CARB 2018; EPA 2018b. Notes: ppm = parts per million; ND = insufficient data available to determine the value; — = data not available; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-10 Data taken from CARB iADAM (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) and EPA AirData (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/) represent the highest concentrations experienced over a given year. Exceedances of federal and state standards are only shown for O3 and particulate matter. Daily exceedances for particulate matter are estimated days because PM10 and PM2.5 are not monitored daily. All other criteria pollutants did not exceed federal or state standards during the years shown. There is no federal standard for 1-hour ozone, annual PM10, or 24-hour SO2, nor is there a state 24-hour standard for PM2.5. Livermore Monitoring Stations are located at 13224 Patterson Pass Road and 793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore, California 94550. Bethel Island Monitoring Station is located at 5551 Bethel Island Road, Bethel Island, California 94511. a Measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 are usually collected every 6 days and every 1 to 3 days, respectively. Number of days exceeding the standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the stand ard had each day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard. 3.2.1.4 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Facilities and structures where these air pollution–sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. Land uses where air pollution– sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (sensitive sites or sensitive land uses) (CARB 2005). Proximate sensitive receptors to the project site include several residences along Byron Hot Springs Road, the nearest of which is located approximately 300 feet to the east of the project site. 3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Criteria Air Pollutants The federal Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants; setting hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards; approving state attainment plans; setting motor vehicle emission standards; issuing stationary source emission standards and permits; and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric O3 protection measures, and enforcement provisions. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are established for the following criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS (other than for O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQS for O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1- to 3-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-11 at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare state implementation plans that demonstrate how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames. Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments, the EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved. Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as attainment for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as nonattainment for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation are redesignated as maintenance areas and must have approved maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. Hazardous Air Pollutants The 1977 federal Clean Air Act amendments required the EPA to identify national emission standards for HAPs to protect public health and welfare. HAPs include certain volatile organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals. Under the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments, which expanded the control program for HAPs, 189 substances and chemical families were identified as HAPs. State Criteria Air Pollutants The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered in attainment if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-12 standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, called for the designation of areas as attainment or nonattainment, but based on CAAQS rather than the NAAQS. The NAAQS, CAAQS, and attainment classifications for the criteria pollutants are outlined in Table 3.2-2. Table 3.2-2 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Pollutant Averaging Time California Standardsa National Standardsb Standard Attainment Status Standard Attainment Status Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm N NA NA 8 hour 0.07 ppm N 0.070 ppm N/Marginalc Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A 8 hour 9 ppm A 9 ppm A Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm U Annual 0.030 ppm NA 0.053 ppm A Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A 24 hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A Annual NA NA 0.03 ppm A Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U Annual 20 µg/m3 N NA NA Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hour NA NA 35 µg/m3 Nd Annual 12 µg/m3 N 12 µg/m3 U/Ae Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 A NA NA Lead 30 day 1.5 µg/m3 NA NA A Cal. Quarter NA NA 1.5 µg/m3 A Rolling 3- Month Average NA NA 0.15 µg/m3 U/A Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm U NA NA Visibility-Reducing Particles 8 hour f U NA NA Source: BAAQMD 2017b. Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; N = Nonattainment; NA = not applicable (no applicable standard); A = Attainment; U = Unclassified; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns. a California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. NAAQS (other than O3, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-13 the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. c On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area. d On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area attains the 24-hour PM2.5 national standard. This EPA rule suspends key SIP requirements as long as monitoring data continues to show that the Bay Area attains the standard. Despite t his EPA action, the Bay Area will continue to be designated as “nonattainment” for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) submits a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” to the EPA, and the EPA approves the proposed redesignation. e In December 2012, the EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. f Statewide visibility reducing particle standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70%. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range. Toxic Air Contaminants The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under AB 1807 (Tanner). The California TAC list identifies more than 700 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) HAPs. In 1987, the legislature enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. AB 2588 requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years. TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. High-priority facilities are required to perform health risk assessments, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, facility operators are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive diesel risk reduction plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines (CARB 2000). The regulation is anticipated to result in an 80% decrease in statewide diesel health risk in 2020 compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment Program. These regulations and programs have timetables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel-powered equipment. There are several Airborne Toxic Control Measures that reduce diesel emissions, including General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) and the Regulation to Reduce 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-14 Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In- Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025). The SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SFBAAB is also designated as a nonattainment area for the state PM10 standards. The SFBAAB is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other criteria air pollutants. Notably, unclassified areas cannot be classified based on available information as meeting or not meeting the ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the SFBAAB, where the project site is located. The clean air strategy of the BAAQMD includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the federal and California Clean Air Acts. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017c). The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx) and reduce O3 transport to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds on BAAQMD efforts to reduce PM2.5 and TACs. To protect the climate, the 2017 Clean Air Plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 and provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve those GHG reduction targets. BAAQMD establishes and administers a program of rules and regulations to attain and maintain state and national air quality standards and regulations related to TACs. The rules and regulations that may apply to the project include the following: • Regulation 2, Rule 1 – Permits. This rule specifies the requirements for authorities to construct and permits. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-15 • Regulation 6, Rule 1 – Particulate Matter. This rule limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere through the establishment of limitations on emission rates, concentration, visible emissions, and opacity. • Regulation 8, Rule 1 – General Provisions. This rule limits the emission of organic compounds into the atmosphere. Contra Costa County The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains the following air quality goals and policies that would apply to the project (Contra Costa County 2005): Goal 8-AA To meet Federal Air Quality Standards for all air pollutants. Goal 8-AB To continue to support Federal, State, and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order to protect human and environmental health. Goal 8-AC To restore air quality in the area to a more healthful level. Goal 8-AD To reduce the percentage of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) trips occurring at peak hours. Policy 8-98 Development and roadway improvements shall be phased to avoid congestion. Policy 8-99 The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials. Policy 8-100 Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. Policy 8-101 A safe, convenient, and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving. Policy 8-102 A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving. Policy 8-103 When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed. Policy 8 -104 Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-16 Policy 8 -105 Land uses which are sensitiv e to air pollution shall be separated from sources of air pollution. Policy 8 -106 Air quality planning efforts shall be coordinated with other local, regional, and State agencies. 3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance and Methodology The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to air quality are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality would occur if the project would: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. Result in a cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance, in June 2010 (BAAQMD 2010), and revised them in May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May 2012, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were recently re- released in May 2017 and include the same thresholds as in the 2010 and 2011 guidelines for criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs (BAAQMD 2017a). The guidelines also address the Supreme Court’s December 2015 opinion (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal. 4th 369). BAAQMD significance thresholds are summarized in Table 3.2-3. In general, the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO address the first two air quality significance criteria. The BAAQMD maintains that these thresholds are intended to maintain ambient air quality concentrations of these criteria air pollutants below state and federal standards and to prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-17 nonattainment with ambient air quality standards. The TAC thresholds (cancer and noncancer risks) and local CO thresholds address the third significance criterion, and the BAAQMD odors threshold addresses the fourth significance criterion. Table 3.2-3 Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best management practices None Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average, 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risks and Hazards (individual project) Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million Increased noncancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 μg/m3 annual average Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Risks and Hazards (cumulative) Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Cancer risk of >100 in a million (from all local sources) Noncancer risk of >10.0 Hazard Index (chronic, from all local sources) Ambient PM2.5 >0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants None Storage or use of acutely hazardous material located near receptors or new receptors located near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant Odors None Five confirmed complaints to BAAQMD per year averaged over 3 years Source: BAAQMD 2017a. Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year = tons per year; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide; ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-18 3.2.3.1 Methodology Construction Non-Aviation and Aviation-Related Uses For the land use development component of the project (i.e., aviation and non-aviation uses), emissions from construction activities were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions (discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) associated with the construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the project land use type and size and construction schedule were based on information provided by the project proponent, or default model assumptions if project specifics were unavailable. To estimate project emissions, it was assumed that construction of the project would take approximately 10 years until build-out, from 2019 through 2028.3 It is assumed that the non- aviation-related uses would be constructed during the first 5 years, and that non-aviation-related uses would be constructed during the final 5 years. The analysis contained herein is based on the following assumptions (duration of phases is approximate): Non-Aviation Uses • Site preparation: 2 months (January 2019–February 2019) • Grading: 5 months (February 2019–July 2019) • Building construction: 47 months (July 2019–June 2023) • Paving: 3 months (June 2023–September 2023) • Architectural coating: 3 months (September 2023–December 2023) Aviation Uses • Site preparation: 1 month (January 2024–February 2024) • Grading: 5 months (February 2024–June 2024) • Building construction: 48 months (June 2024–July 2028) 3 Note that this is a conservative estimate, as air quality modelling assumes that emissions generally improve over time. Therefore, estimated emissions would not increase due to delays in the start of construction and may actually be reduced. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-19 • Paving: 3 months (July 2028–October 2028) • Architectural coating: 3 months (October 2028–December 2028) For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site 5 days per week (22 days per month) during project construction. In addition to construction equipment operation, emissions from worker trips and vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks) were estimated based on CalEEMod defaults. Vendor trucks transporting building materials were assumed for building construction. No haul trucks were assumed since demolition would not be required, and soils would be balanced on site. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active construction days. The construction equipment mix and estimated hours of equipment operation per day used for the air emissions modeling of the project are based on model defaults, except that a trencher was adding during the grading activity to account for utility installation. Assumptions are summarized in Table 3.2-4, with additional details regarding construction assumptions are provided in the modeling output (Appendix C). Table 3.2-4 Non-Aviation and Aviation Construction Scenario Assumptions Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips Average Daily Vendor Truck Trips Average Daily Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity Usage Hours Non-Aviation Uses Site Preparation 18 0 0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Grading 20 0 0 Excavators 2 8 Graders 1 8 Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Trenchers 1 8 Building Construction 427 173 0 Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Paving 15 0 0 Pavers 2 8 Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coatings 85 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-20 Table 3.2-4 Non-Aviation and Aviation Construction Scenario Assumptions Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips Average Daily Vendor Truck Trips Average Daily Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity Usage Hours Aviation Uses Site Preparation 18 0 0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 3 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Grading 23 0 0 Excavators 2 8 Graders 1 8 Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 Trenchers 1 8 Building Construction 387 151 0 Cranes 1 7 Forklifts 3 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 Welders 1 8 Paving 15 0 0 Pavers 2 8 Paving Equipment 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Architectural Coatings 77 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6 Source: Appendix C. Roadway Expansion and Water Infrastructure Emissions from the roadway expansion and water infrastructure construction activities were estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0 (SMAQMD 2018). These construction activities are related to the implementation of mitigation measures for transportation and utilities (see Section 3.13, Transportation, and Section 3.14, Utilities). For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that the roadway expansion and water infrastructure activities would both commence in January 2019 for durations of 15 days and 35 days, respectively. In regards to the 0.89-mile roadway expansion, it was estimated that approximately 1 acre total would be disturbed, and that approximately 2,030 cubic yards of asphalt mix would be imported for paving. In regards to the 2.6-mile pipeline installation, it was estimated that approximately 1.5 acres total would be disturbed, that approximately 2,974 cubic yards of demolition debris would be exported, and that 2,965 cubic yards of asphalt mix would be imported for paving. The analysis contained herein is based on the following assumptions (duration of phases is approximate): 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-21 Roadway Expansion • Grubbing/land clearing: 2 days (January 2019) • Grading/excavation: 6 days (January 2019) • Drainage/utilities/sub-grade: 5 days (January 2019) • Paving: 2 days (January 2019) Water Infrastructure Installation • Grubbing/land clearing: 4 days (January 2019) • Grading/excavation: 11 days (January 2019) • Drainage/utilities/sub-grade: 16 days (January 2019–February 2019) • Paving: 5 days (January 2019–February 2019) The construction equipment mix, worker trips, and water truck trips used for estimating the construction emissions of these activities are based on model defaults, with the addition of a trencher to the drainage/utilities/sub-grade phase of the water infrastructure analysis. Assumptions are depicted in Table 3.2-5. Table 3.2-5 Roadway Expansion and Water Infrastructure Construction Scenario Assumptions Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips Average Daily Water Truck Trips Average Daily Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity Usage Hours Roadway Expansion Grubbing/Land Clearing 14 10 0 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Excavators 2 8 Signal Boards 2 8 Grading/Excavation 44 10 0 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Excavators 3 8 Graders 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Rubber-Tired Loaders 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Signal Boards 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Drainage/Utilities/ Sub-Grade 30 10 38 Air Compressors 1 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Graders 1 8 Plate Compactors 1 8 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-22 Table 3.2-5 Roadway Expansion and Water Infrastructure Construction Scenario Assumptions Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips Average Daily Water Truck Trips Average Daily Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity Usage Hours Pumps 1 8 Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8 Scrapers 1 8 Signal Boards 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Paving 24 10 38 Pavers 1 8 Paving Equipment 1 8 Rollers 2 8 Signal Boards 2 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Water Infrastructure Installation Grubbing/Land Clearing 24 10 26 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Excavators 2 8 Signal Boards 6 8 Grading/Excavation 54 10 26 Crawler Tractors 1 8 Excavators 3 8 Graders 2 8 Rollers 2 8 Rubber-Tired Loaders 1 8 Scrapers 2 8 Signal Boards 6 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 Drainage/Utilities/ Sub-Grade 40 10 24 Air Compressors 1 8 Generator Sets 1 8 Graders 1 8 Plate Compactors 1 8 Pumps 1 8 Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8 Scrapers 1 8 Signal Boards 6 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Paving 34 10 24 Pavers 1 8 Paving Equipment 1 8 Rollers 2 8 Signal Boards 6 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 Notes: Appendix C. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-23 For the analysis, it was assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month) during project construction. Operations Emissions from the operational phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational year 2029 was assumed based on the first full year of operations. During long-term operations, the project would generate air pollutants from mobile, energy, and area sources. Traffic trips were estimated based on the land uses specified in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and by adjusting default weekday trip rates in CalEEMod to match those included in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (GHD 2019) for the land use types.4 The same adjustment factors used for the weekday trip generation were applied to the default Saturday and Sunday trip rates in CalEEMod. Increased trip lengths for potential customers based on the rural location of the project, as well as the project specific vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for employees, as described in Chapter 3.13, Transportation, of this EIR. Non-work trip lengths were increased to account for potentially greater travel distance for deliveries. Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model outputs for traffic. Default CalEEMod assumptions were used for natural gas combustion and area sources (i.e., landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings for building maintenance). Notably, energy use associated with the airport storage facilities was assumed to be equivalent to an unrefrigerated warehouse. In addition, per the CEC Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings, the first-year savings for newly constructed nonresidential buildings are 197 gigawatt hours of electricity, 76.6 megawatt of demand, and 0.27 million therms of gas, representing reductions from the 2016 Title 24 standard of 10.7%, 9%, and 1%, respectively (CEC 2018a). To take into account energy reductions associated with compliance with 2019 Title 24, the CalEEMod Title 24 electricity and natural gas values were reduced by 10.7% and 1%, respectively, for all project buildings. The applied reductions are anticipated to be conservative as in general, nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018b). 3.2.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.2-1. The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Potentially Significant) 4 The Logistics/ Warehouse/ Distribution land use was modeled in CalEEMod with “Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail” and “Unrefrigerated Warehouse – With Rail” in order to delineate fleet mix and trip lengths for employees versus haul trucks, with 69% of trips assumed to be employees and 31% assumed to be trucks, based on the “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2014). 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-24 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards. These standards are set by the EPA or CARB for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the SFBAAB, which is designated non-attainment for the federal 8-hour O3 and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated non-attainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and annual PM2.5. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017c). The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions can be concluded in the affirmative and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area. The first question to be assessed in this methodology is “does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan?” The BAAQMD-recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality Impact 3.2-2 and Impact 3.2-3, the project would result in potentially significant operational emission impacts associated with NOx and PM10, primarily from mobile sources. Therefore, the project would be considered to potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Clean Air Plan. The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The control strategies of the 2017 Clean Air Plan include measures in the categories of stationary sources, the transportation sector, the buildings sector, the energy sector, the agriculture sector, natural and working lands, the waste sector, the water sector, and super-GHG pollutant measures. Depending on the control measure, the tools for implementation include leveraging the BAAQMD rules and permitting authority, regional coordination and funding, working with local governments to facilitate best policies in building codes, outreach and education, and advocacy strategies. The project would comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and would meet state standards and/or local building codes and would not conflict with any applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-25 The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. The project would not create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities in the area, nor would it include excessive parking. Therefore, the project would not hinder implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. In summary, based on the substantial increase in operational emissions of NOx and PM10, the project would potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially significant impact. Impact 3.2-2. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. (Potentially Significant) Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the SFBAAB adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, by its nature air pollution is largely a cumulative impact; no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant adverse air quality impact to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if the project’s emissions are below the BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant. Construction The project would potentially involve the construction and operation of up to 274,000 square feet of logistics/warehouse/distribution buildings, 213,000 square feet of light industry/business park, 81,000 square feet of office uses, 91,000 square feet of commercial uses, 128,000 square feet of airport storage, 154,000 square feet of aviation use buildings, and associated parking. In addition, the project would require 0.89 miles of roadway expansion and 2.6 miles of water infrastructure installation. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2019 and take approximately 10 years to complete. Sources of emissions would include off-road construction equipment exhaust, on-road vehicle exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., material delivery trucks and worker vehicles), fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and paving and architectural coating activities. Detailed assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix C. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-26 Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active construction days, which were then compared to the BAAQMD construction thresholds of significance. Table 3.2-6 shows average daily construction emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction.5 Table 3.2-6 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions – Non-Aviation and Aviation Uses, Roadway Expansion, and Water Infrastructure Installation Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust pounds per day 2019–2028 Construction 7.4 33.8 1.0 0.9 BAAQMD Construction Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Appendix C. Note: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The values shown are average daily emissions based on total overall tons of construction emissions associated with the development of the non- aviation and aviation uses, roadway expansion, and water infrastructure installation, converted to pounds, and divided by 2,609 active workdays. As shown in Table 3.2-6, construction of the project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant.6 Although the BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance of fugitive dust through application of best management practices. Without adequate controls, fugitive dust during construction could be a short-term, but potentially significant impact. Operations Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from project-related operational sources, as previously described in Section 3.2.3, Thresholds of Significance and Methodology. 5 Fuel combustion during construction and operations would also result in the generation of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) and CO. These values are included in Appendix C. However, since the SFBAAB is in attainment of these pollutants, the BAAQMD has not established a quantitative mass-significance threshold for comparison and are not included in the project-generated emissions tables in this document. Notably, the BAAQMD does have screening criteria for operational localized CO, which are discussed in more detail below. 6 Construction emissions are based on the assumption of a five -year construction period for all non-aviation uses. It should be noted that the buildout of the warehousing component, approximately 274,000 square feet of building space, could be accomplished in a two-year period without exceeding the significance thresholds. The estimated unmitigated construction emissions for the warehousing component would be ROG 10.6 lbs./day, NOx 48.2 lbs./day, PM10 1.4 lbs./day, and PM2.5 1.3 lbs./day. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-27 Table 3.2-7 summarizes the daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by project operations in the year 2029 (assumed as the first full year of operations after build-out) and compares the emissions to BAAQMD operational thresholds. Table 3.2-7 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions – Project Buildout Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 pounds per day Area 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.3 2.8 0.2 0.2 Mobile 14.1 72.2 99.7 27.1 Total 37.7 75.0 99.9 27.3 BAAQMD Operational Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No Yes Yes No Source: Appendix C. Note: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Totals may not round due to rounding. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from California Emissions Estimator Model. As indicated in Table 3.2-7, project-related operational emissions of ROG and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations. However, project-related emissions of NOx and PM10, primarily from mobile sources, would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. As such, the project would have a potentially significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. Impact 3.2-3. The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Potentially Significant) Toxic Air Contaminants The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk-related air quality indicators to sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a localized, rather than regional, basis in relation to sensitive receptors identified for the project. Sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, older adults, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure. Sensitive-receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes. Proximate sensitive receptors to the project include several residences along Byron Hot Springs Road, the nearest of which is located approximately 300 feet to the east of the project. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-28 TACs and PM2.5 can cause cancer and noncancer chronic and acute health impacts such as birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, and genetic damage, and short-term acute affects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, running nose, throat pain, and headaches. State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that are a problem in California. The state currently regulates hundreds of compounds as TACs, including the federal HAPs, and continues to adopt control measures for sources of these TACs. CARB has classified DPM as a TAC. The following measures are required by state law to reduce DPM emissions: • Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449) to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. • All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading must be limited to 5 minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be DPM emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks. Since the project construction would be phased based on market conditions, with activities in multiple areas across the project site, the project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment or diesel trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs. However, based on the proximity of existing sensitive receptors to project construction, this impact would be potentially significant. Regarding long-term operations, the project would include uses that would likely generate substantial diesel truck traffic, including the logistics/warehouse/distribution buildings. In regards to distribution centers, the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB 2005) has the following recommendations: • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center that: o Accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, or o Accommodates more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or o Where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week. Based on preliminary site plans, it is possible that the project would result in distribution (or similar) facilities within 1,000 feet of existing off-site residential receptors. Since operational 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-29 parameters, such as truck trip generation and TRU usage, are unknown at this time, the potential health risk from exposure to DPM would be speculative. However, based on the proposed land uses and the proximity to sensitive receptors, this impact would be potentially significant. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots According to the BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met (BAAQMD 2017a): 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The project would generate new traffic trips, but not to a level that would result in an exceedance of the BAAQMD screening criteria. Accordingly, project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This CO emissions impact would be less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. Health Impacts of Other Criteria Air Pollutants Construction and operation of the project would not result in emissions that exceed the BAAQMD emission thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. ROG and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SFBAAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of ROG and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SFBAAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source locations to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the ROG emissions would occur because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest. The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this impact. That being said, because the project would exceed the BAAQMD NOx threshold during operations, the project could contribute to health effects associated with O3. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-30 Health effects associated with NOx and NO2 include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (see Section 3.2.1.2) (CARB 2019a). Although Project-related NOx emissions would exceed the BAAQMD mass daily thresholds during operations, because the SFBAAB is a designated attainment area for NO2 (and NO2 is a constituent of NOx) and the existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards,7 it is not anticipated that the project would cause an exceedance of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 or result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NOx. Nonetheless, because the project would exceed the BAAQMD NOx threshold during operations, the project could contribute to health effects associated with NOx and NO2. Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light- headedness, and reduced mental alertness (see Section 3.2.1.2) (CARB 2019b). CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The potential for CO hotspots was discussed above and determined to be less than significant. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with CO. Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (see Section 3.2.1.2) (CARB 2017). Operation of the project would exceed the BAAMQD threshold for PM10. As such, the project would potentially contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter and obstruct the SFBAAB from coming into attainment for this pollutant. Because the project has the potential to contribute substantial particulate matter during operation, the project could result in associated health effects. The California Supreme Court’s Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502 decision (referred to herein as the Friant Ranch decision) (issued on December 24, 2018), addresses the need to correlate mass emission values for criteria air pollutants to specific health consequences, and contains the following direction from the California Supreme Court: “The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must provide an adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential adverse impacts or it must explain what the agency does know and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential health impacts further” (Italics original). Currently, BAAQMD, CARB, and EPA have not approved a quantitative method to reliably, meaningfully, and consistently translate the mass emission estimates for the criteria air pollutants resulting from the project to specific health effects. In addition, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days. In connection with the judicial proceedings culminating in issuance of the Friant Ranch decision, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) filed amicus briefs attesting to the extreme difficulty of 7 See Table 3.2-1, which shows that ambient concentrations of NO2 at the Livermore-Patterson Pass Road monitoring station have not exceeded the NAAQS or CAAQS between 2015 and 2017. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-31 correlating an individual project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to specific health impacts. Both the SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD have among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capabilities of the air districts in the state. The key, relevant points from the SCAQMD and SJVAPCD briefs is summarized herein. In requiring a health impact type of analysis for criteria air pollutants, it is important to understand how O3 and PM is formed, dispersed, and regulated. The formation of O3 and PM in the atmosphere, as secondary pollutants,8 involves complex chemical and physical interactions of multiple pollutants from natural and anthropogenic sources. The O3 reaction is self-perpetuating (or catalytic) in the presence of sunlight because NO2 is photochemically reformed from nitric oxide (NO). In this way, O3 is controlled by both NOx and VOC emissions (NRC 2005). The complexity of these interacting cycles of pollutants means that incremental decreases in one emission may not result in proportional decreases in O3 (NRC 2005). Although these reactions and interactions are well understood, variability in emission source operations and meteorology creates uncertainty in the modeled O3 concentrations to which downwind populations may be exposed (NRC 2005). Once formed, O3 can be transported long distances by wind and due to atmospheric transport, contributions of precursors from the surrounding region can also be important (EPA 2008). Because of the complexity of O3 formation, a specific tonnage amount of VOCs or NOX emitted in a particular area does not equate to a particular concentration of O3 in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). PM can be divided into two categories: directly emitted PM and secondary PM. Secondary PM, like O3, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as SOx and NOx (SJVAPCD 2015). Because of the complexity of secondary PM formation, including the potential to be transported long distances by wind, the tonnage of PM- forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary PM in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). This is especially true for individual projects, like the project, where project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions are not derived from a single "point source," but from construction equipment and mobile sources (passenger cars and trucks) driving to, from and around the project site. Another important technical nuance is that health effects from air pollutants are related to the concentration of the air pollutant that an individual is exposed to, not necessarily the individual mass quantity of emissions associated with an individual project. For example, health effects from O3 are correlated with increases in the ambient level of O3 in the air a person breathes (SCAQMD 2015). However, it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over an entire region (SCAQMD 2015). The lack of link between the tonnage of precursor pollutants and the concentration of O3 and PM2.5 formed is important because it is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects; rather, it is the concentration of resulting O3 that causes these effects (SJVAPCD 2015). Indeed, 8 Air pollutants formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere are referred to as secondary pollutants. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-32 the ambient air quality standards, which are statutorily required to be set by EPA at levels that are requisite to protect the public health, are established as concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (EPA 2018c). Because the ambient air quality standards are focused on achieving a particular concentration region-wide, the tools and plans for attaining the ambient air quality standards are regional in nature. For CEQA analyses, project-generated emissions are typically estimated in pounds per day or tons per year and compared to mass daily or annual emission thresholds. While CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS, even if a project exceeds established CEQA significance thresholds, this does not mean that one can easily determine the concentration of O3 or PM that will be created at or near the project site on a particular day or month of the year, or what specific health impacts will occur (SJVAPCD 2015). In regard to regional concentrations and air basin attainment, the SJVAPCD emphasized that attempting to identify a change in background pollutant concentrations that can be attributed to a single project, even one as large as the entire Friant Ranch Specific Plan, is a theoretical exercise. The SJVAPCD brief noted that it “would be extremely difficult to model the impact on NAAQS attainment that the emissions from the Friant Ranch project may have” (SJVAPCD 2015). The situation is further complicated by the fact that background concentrations of regional pollutants are not uniform either temporally or geographically throughout an air basin but are constantly fluctuating based upon meteorology and other environmental factors. SJVAPCD noted that the currently available modeling tools are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin on attainment (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD brief then indicated that, “Running the photochemical grid model used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project (which equate to less than one-tenth of one percent of the total NOx and VOC in the Valley) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved” (SJVAPCD 2015). SCAQMD and SJVAPCD have indicated that it is not feasible to quantify project-level health impacts based on existing modeling (SCAQMD 2015; SJVAPCD 2015). Even if a metric could be calculated, it would not be reliable because the models are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in an air basin on attainment and would likely not yield valid information or a measurable increase in O3 concentrations sufficient to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts for an individual project. Nonetheless, following the Supreme Court’s Friant Ranch decision, some EIRs where estimated criteria air pollutant emissions exceeded applicable air district thresholds have included a quantitative analysis of potential project-generated health effects using a combination of a regional photochemical grid model (PGM)9 and the EPA Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP or BenMAP– 9 The first step in the publicly available HIAs includes running a regional PGM, such as the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model or the Comprehensive Air Quality M odel with extensions (CAMx) to estimate the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 as a result of project-generated emissions of criteria and precursor 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-33 Community Edition [CE]).10 To date, the publicly available health impact assessments (HIAs) typically present results in terms of an increase in health incidences and/or the increase in background health incidence for various health outcomes resulting from the project’s estimated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5, and have each concluded that the potential health impacts are negligible and potentially within the models’ margin of error.11 As explained in the SJVAPCD brief and noted previously, running the PGM used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from an individual project like the Friant Ranch project or the proposed project is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. The publicly available HIAs support the SJVAPCD’s brief contention that consistent, reliable, and meaningful results may not be provided by methods applied at this time. Accordingly, additional work in the industry and more importantly, air district participation, is needed to develop a more meaningful analysis to correlate project-level mass criteria air pollutant emissions and health effects for decision makers and the public. Furthermore, at the time of writing, no HIA has concluded that health effects estimated using the PGM and BenMAP approach are substantial provided that the estimated project-generated incidences represent a very small percentage of the number of background incidences, potentially within the models’ margin of error. In summary, operation of the project could result in exceedances of the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10 and the project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants. Because construction of the project would not exceed any BAAQMD thresholds, and operation of the project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for ROG or PM2.5, and because the BAAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the SFBAAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS and the AAQS are established to protect public health and welfare, the project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with ROG or PM2.5. pollutants. Air districts use photochemical air quality models for regional air quality planning. These photochemical models are large-scale air quality models that simulate the changes of pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere using a set of mathematical equations characterizing the chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere (EPA 2017). 10 After estimating the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5, the second step in the five examples includes use of BenMAP or BenMAP-CE to estimate the resulting associated health effects. BenMAP estimates the number of health incidences resulting from changes in air pollution concentrations (EPA 2018d). The health impact function in BenMAP-CE incorporates four key sources of data: (i) modeled or monitored air quality changes, (ii) population, (iii) baseline incidence rates, and (iv) an effect estimate. All of the five example HIAs focused on O3 and PM2.5. 11 The following CEQA documents included a quantitative HIA to address Friant Ranch: (1) California State University Dominguez Hills 2018 Campus Master Plan EIR (CSU Dominguez Hills 2019), (2) March Joint Powers Association K4 Warehouse and Cactus Channel Improvements EIR (March JPA 2019), (3) Mineta San Jose Airport Amendment to the Airport Master Plan EIR (City of San Jose 2019), (4) City of Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project EIR (City of Inglewood 2019), and (5) San Diego State University Mission Valley Campus Master Plan EIR (SDSU 2019). 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-34 Notably, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions associated with the project, which cannot be estimated with a high-level of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the project could result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-3, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.2-4. The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. In regards to long-term operations, the project uses are not among the land uses that the BAAQMD has identified as a prime source of odors discussed above. Therefore, project-related odor impacts during construction and operations would be less than significant. 3.2.5 Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved acces s 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. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-35 • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 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 Mea sure, 13 CCR 2485). 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 by a certi fied 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 lead agency 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. MM-AQ-2 The project shall implement the following measures for all facilities in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. To the extent that the measures below are addressed by MM-AQ-4 as part of any health risk assessment that is prepared, the measures in MM-AQ-4 shall take precedence. • Only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the project site. • Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. • Prior to tenant occupancy, the facility operator shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-36 the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than- required engines and equipment. • The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24 shall be provided. In addition, the buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future. • Conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the facility operator during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. MM-AQ-3 For non-aviation facilities with construction proposed within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors, a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared to assess exposure of existing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) during project construction. If the health risk assessment determines that cancer and non- cancer impacts would be less than significant, no additional measures are needed. Alternatively, the results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of TAC exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less-than- significant levels, which could include, but are not limited to, the following: • Portable equipment used during construction shall be powered by electricity from the grid instead of diesel -powered generators, to the maximum amount feasible. • Equip heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or better diesel engines, except where Tier 4 Interim or better engines are not available for specific construction equipment. Contra Costa County shall verify and approve all pieces within the construction fleet that would not meet Tier 4 Interim standards. At a minimum, Tier 3 engines shall be required if Tier 4 engines are not available. • All conditions of approval/mitigations shall be placed on construction drawings and part of any construction contract. Physical copies of the plans shall be available at the on-site job trailer. MM-AQ-4 For non-aviation uses, a health risk assessment of long-term operations shall be prepared if the proposed facility is within 1,000 feet of off-site residential receptors and would result in any of the following: • Accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, or 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-37 • Accommodate more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or • Where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week. Results of the health risk assessment may necessitate implementation of toxic air contaminant (TAC ) exposure reduction strategies in order to reduce potential risk to less -than -significant levels , which could include , but are not limited to , the following: • Idling of diesel equipment of any type shall be strictly prohibited at the premises. The facility operator shall inform all business partners, visitors, etc., of the Zero-Idling Rule in effect for the subject property and area streets. Highly visible signs prohibiting idling shall be posted at each entrance and exist. Violators of this zero-idling rule are subject to fines and or criminal charges. • Within 90 days of occupying the space, the facility operator shall submit to the Airports Division and the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) the first of an annual inventory of all equipment that generates criteria pollutant, TACs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions operated at the subject location throughout the life of the project up to year 2035. The equipment inventory shall include the year, make, and model of the equipment that was used in the previous year, including annual hours of operation for each piece of equipment, including but not limited to heavy- duty drayage and non-drayage trucks, yard equipment, bulk material handling equipment (forklifts, etc.), and any other type of material handling equipment. The purpose of the inventory is to track emissions/equipment and to assist in technology reviews. • The facility operator shall purchase/lease or otherwise acquire zero- emission vehicles/equipment (including: light/heavy duty trucks, drayage equipment, forklifts, and generators) when commercially available as the attrition of gasoline/diesel equipment occurs. The facility operator is encouraged to utilize any or all of the funding opportunities offered by California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other available programs. The availability of zero-emission equipment shall be determined in a joint effort between the Airports Division and the facility operator as part of an annual technology review. • The facility operator shall adhere to the findings of the annual technologies review for reducing air emissions as part of the County Climate Action Plan 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-38 and long-range sustainability goals, which encourage property owners and tenants to use cleaner technologies over time as they become available. A priority goal of the review shall be the replacement of older equipment in operation at the subject site that generates the highest levels of criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions. The equipment to be replaced shall be determined based on the level of emissions and cost-effectiveness of the emissions reduction (e.g., biggest reduction per dollar), and identify implementation mechanisms including, but not limited to, tenant-based improvements, grant programs, or a combination thereof, based on regulatory requirements and the feasibility analysis performed by the Airports Division. The Carl Moyer Program, or similar cost-effectiveness criteria, shall be used to assess the economic feasibility (e.g., cos t effectiveness) of the identified new technologies. Zero-emission equipment employed pursuant to this mitigation may be replaced by other technologies or other types of equipment as long as the replacement equipment achieves the same or greater criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emission reductions as compared to the equipment identified as part of the technology review. • Every California-based TRU and electronic-TRU (E-TRU) operational at the site must be registered with the Air Resource Board Equipment Registration and shall be labeled with a CARB Identification Number. Facility operators handling TRUs shall install charging infrastructure and encourage E-TRUs on site and require those non-E-TRUs to plug in while stationary at the facility. • Prior to occupancy the facility operator shall demonstrate compliance with all newly adopted Ordinances/Statutes/Plans and requirements passed by all responsible agencies in relation to traffic, diesel emissions and air quality improvement measures. 3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation By exceeding the BAAQMD operational thresholds for NOx and PM10, despite implementation of feasible mitigation measures, described below, the project would conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and Impact 3.2-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM-AQ-1 would reduce the effect of fugitive dust to less than significant. Although mitigation measures have been recommended to minimize operational-related air quality impacts, per MM-AQ-2, no feasible mitigation measures or project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. The majority of the project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage, which 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-39 neither the project applicant nor the County can substantively or materially affect reductions in project mobile source emissions beyond what is already required. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long-term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment remain significant. Therefore Impact 3.2-2 would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM-AQ-3 and MM-AQ-4 would reduce the potential exposure of existing sensitive residential receptors to TACs from project construction and operations and would ensure that health risk levels would be below the BAAQMD thresholds. Thus, Impact 3.2-3 would be less than significant after mitigation. 3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Impact 3.2-2, above. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to air quality. 3.2.8 References Cited BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. Accessed March 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ draft_baaqmd_ceqa_guidelines_may_2010_final.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning% 20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May% 202012.ashx?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017b. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Last updated January 5, 2017. Accessed January 2019. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/ air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. BAAQMD. 2017c. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/ attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. CARB (California Air Resources Board). n.d. “Glossary.” Accessed October 2018. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-40 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed October 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. CARB. 2009. “ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control.” Page last reviewed December 2, 2009. Accessed October 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm.CARB. 2017. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). Page last reviewed August 10, 2017. Accessed May 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/common-pollutants/pm/pm.htm. CARB. 2018. “Ambient air quality data.” [digital CARB data]. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed November 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/ topfour1.php.CARB. 2019a. “Nitrogen Dioxide & Health.” Accessed May 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health. CARB. 2019b. “Carbon Monoxide & Health.” Accessed May 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2018a. Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. June. CEC. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet. March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/ 2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf City of Inglewood. 2019. Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project EIR. http://ibecproject.com/D_AirQuality.pdf City of San Jose. 2019. Mineta San Jose Airport Amendment to the Airport Master Plan EIR. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=44596 Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan – Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30918/Ch8- Conservation-Element?bidId=.CSUDH (California State University Dominguez Hills). 2019. California State University Dominguez Hills Campus Master Plan EIR. https://www.csudh.edu/Assets/csudh-sites/fpcm/docs/campus-master-plan/ 2019-09-11-FEIR-appendices.pdf. 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-41 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. March 2008. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/452_R_08_003.pdf EPA. 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/R-08/139F. December 2009. Accessed October 2018. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/ eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=494959. EPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report, Feb 2013). EPA/600/R-10/076F. February 2013. Accessed October 2018. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492. EPA. 2016. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report, 2016). U.S. EPA, EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016. Accessed October 2018. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879. EPA. 2017. Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) - Photochemical Air Quality Modeling. https://www.epa.gov/scram/photochemical-air-quality-modeling EPA. 2018a. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” March 8, 2018. Accessed October 2018. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. EPA. 2018b. “Air Data: Access to Air Pollution Data.” November 14, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ outdoor-air-quality-data.EPA. 2018c. “Ground-level Ozone Basics.” Last updated October 31, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics EPA. 2018d. Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Models. https://www.epa.gov/ cmaq/cmaq-models-0 GHD. 2019. Byron Airport Development Project – Transportation Impact Analysis Report. March JPA (March Joint Powers Association). 2019. K4 Warehouse and Cactus Channel Improvements EIR. https://www.marchjpa.com/documents/docs_forms/ K-4_Final_Draft_EIR.pdf NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11208. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2014. “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage”. July 17, 2014. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/ finalswg071714backup.pdf 3.2 – AIR QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.2-42 SCAQMD. 2015. Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783 (filed Apr. 13, 2015). https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ 9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf. SDSU (San Diego State University). 2019. San Diego State University Mission Valley Campus Master Plan EIR Additional Information Regarding Potential Health Effects of Air Quality Impacts. December 2019. https://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/assets/pdfs/FEIR/ appendices/4_2_3_SDSU_MV_Health_Effects_Memo.pdf SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant And Respondent, County Of Fresno, And Real Party In Interest And Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P., Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783 (filed Apr. 13, 2015). https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7-s219783-ac-san-joaquin- valley-unified-air-pollution-control-dist-041315.pdf SMAQMD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District). 2018. “Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0.” http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-1 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing biological resources of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts to less- than-significant levels. This section is based on the Biological Resources Assessment for the Byron Airport Project prepared by Dudek in December 2018 (Appendix D). 3.3.1 Existing Conditions This section describes the existing conditions in the project site and also identifies the resources that could be affected by construction and/or operation of the project. 3.3.1.1 Project Location The project site is located in southeastern Contra Costa County (County), approximately 2.5 miles south of the community of Byron, California. The project site consists of the Byron Airport property south of Armstrong Road, which is approximately 1,307 acres, and the 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of 1,319 acres. The airport also owns an additional 120 acres north of Armstrong Road that is not considered part of the project site. The project site is relatively flat land that contains several buildings, two nonintersecting runways each with a parallel taxiway, several connector taxiways, and aircraft storage areas. The airport is located on the western edge of the flat Central Valley agricultural lands, giving way to rolling hills and grasslands west of the airport. Clifton Court Forebay is located less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir is approximately 3 miles to the south, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 5 miles to the west. The project site is characterized as open grassland combined with developed/disturbed areas. Vegetation surrounding the site consists of ruderal ornamental landscaping, ruderal grassland adjacent to runways, annual grassland with scattered vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, and alkali grasslands. The project site historically supported agricultural fields from at least 1949 until 1966, when a portion of it was graded to establish a smaller airfield. Approximately 814 acres of airport property to the south and west of the airfield (south of Armstrong Road) are set aside as for habitat management/conservation (Conservation lands). The following sections consider the biological study area, which is based on the potential development area identified in the Byron Airport Master Plan (Contra Costa County 2005a). Within this larger study area, the proposed project considers development in two areas: a 46.6-acre non-aviation area east of the main runway, and a 23.5-acre aviation area adjacent to the existing aviation facilities west of the main runway (Figure 3.3-1, Field-Verified Land Cover Map). The areas shown as “Development Reserve” on Figure 3.3-1 were considered for potential development in the Byron Airport Master Plan but have since been removed from the proposed project. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-2 3.3.1.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Four terrestrial, and four aquatic land cover types exist in the study area, as shown in Figure 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-1. The majority of the area is made up of annual grassland habitat with urban areas that include the buildings, paved areas, and ornamental landscaping associated with operation of the airport. The remaining portion of the project site consists of annual and alkali grasslands interspersed with seasonal and alkali wetlands, as well as vernal pools. Seasonal wetlands are prevalent in the annual grassland in the northwestern and western areas of the project site. Several drainages also cross through the project site. These drainages appear to be intermittent in nature, carrying water only during the wet season. These land cover types are described in detail below. Table 3.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Within the Study Area and Proposed Development Footprint Macrogroup Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type1 Acres Non- Aviation Aviation Development Reserve Low Intensity Use No Impact Total Terrestrial Grassland Annual Grassland 39.12 16.42 51.94 29.87 40.13 177.48 Alkali Grassland — 0.29 1.16 — — 1.45 Ruderal Grassland — 6.31 10.35 — — 16.66 Developed Urban — — 1.37 0.28 0.96 2.61 Subtotal 39.12 23.02 68.42 30.94 59.73 221.23 Aquatic Wetland Seasonal Wetland — — 1.54 0.79 2.35 4.69 Alkali Wetland — — 2.05 — 16.28 18.33 Stream Intermittent Stream – Brushy Creek 0.34 (602.08 linear feet) — — 0.35 (602.09 linear feet) 5.68 (9,890.55 linear feet) 6.37 (11,094.72 linear feet) Intermittent Stream – Tributary to Brushy Creek — — 0.50 (862.92 linear feet) 0.59 (142.74 linear feet) 7.93 (14,686.35 linear feet) 9.02 (15,692.01 linear feet) Subtotal 0.34 — 0.50 0.94 13.61 15.39 Total 39.46 23.02 68.92 31.88 73.34 236.62 1 Vegetation communities and land cover types coincide with those described in the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCCHCPA 2006). 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-3 Grasslands Annual Grasslands Annual grassland is the predominant vegetation community mapped during the surveys and is present throughout the site. Annual grassland within the site is dominated by a dense to sparse cover of annual, non-native grasses and forbs. Common species include soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus and B. diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and others. However, native species are also present in this grassland, including bulbs (Dichelostemma spp. and Brodiaea spp.), legumes such lupines (Lupinus nanus and L. succulentus), and some grasses such as blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus). Ruderal species are also often present in grasslands, especially along the margins of grasslands and in areas that have been historically disturbed. Dominant species observed on site within the grassland community included slender oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and soft brome. Several ruderal and other non-native species were also present, including curly dock (Rumex crispus) and garden vetch (Vicia sativa). Alkali Grasslands Alkali grasslands were similar in species composition to annual grasslands except for the decreased cover of non-native grasses and increased cover of species with an affinity for alkaline soils. Species adapted for greater alkalinity observed in alkali grasslands on site included salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), wild barley (Hordeum spp.), and a few scattered stands of iodine bushes (Allenrolfea occidentalis). Ruderal Grasslands Ruderal grasslands were mapped in association with the airport facilities. These areas appear to be maintained on an annual or semi-annual basis to control wildlife and weeds within the airport enclosure. Dominant species in the ruderal grassland are similar to those in the annual grassland; however, the occurrence of native grasses and forbs is much reduced. Black mustard (Brassica nigra), field mustard (B. rapa), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) were common amongst the wild oats in this habitat type. Developed Urban Urban areas are those dominated by human-made structures. In the project site, urban areas consist of roadways, runways, hangars, other airport buildings, and a residence and shop. Vegetation in these areas is sparse to absent, consisting primarily of cultivated plants in planters. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-4 Wetlands Seasonal Wetlands Seasonal wetlands were prevalent in the annual grassland in the northwestern and western areas of the project site. Species commonly noted within the seasonal wetlands included Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), seaside barley (Hordeum marinum), small fescue (Festuca microstachys), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Several small stands of red willow (Salix laevigata) were also noted along the margins of the seasonal wetlands in the western portion of the site. Alkali Wetlands Alkali wetlands consisted of seasonal wetlands within alkali grassland. The alkali wetlands generally consisted of barren areas where water remains inundated for prolonged periods of time during the growing season. Species similar to those found in seasonal wetlands occur along the margins of the alkali wetlands in addition to salt grass, silverscale saltbush (Atriplex argentea), and spikeweed (Centromadia ssp.). Streams Intermittent Drainages Several drainages cross the project site. These drainages appear to be intermittent in nature, carrying water only during the wet season. The banks of the drainages are generally dominated by non-native grasses similar to those described in annual grassland, above. The top of banks are dominated by black mustard and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). Brushy Creek travels through the project site from the southwest and exits on the northern end at Armstrong Road. The creek holds more water than the other drainages; however, it is considered intermittent because it maintains flows only when rainwater provides adequate surface and subsurface flow. An unnamed tributary to Brushy Creek flows through the eastern portion of the project site, draining rainwater runoff from the hills south of the project site north to eventually meet with Brushy Creek northeast of the project site. These features maintain flow only when there is adequate water in the system from rainfall or groundwater and are typically dry during dry periods. 3.3.1.3 Special-Status Species A total of 33 species of vascular plants were recorded during site surveys (see Appendix D). Of these 33 species, 13 are native to California. The remainders are non-native species which have become adapted to annual grasslands in California. It should be noted that the first site survey was conducted very early in the growing season, at a time when most plants are not evident and identifiable, and the 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-5 second survey was performed in winter; as such, floristic surveys conducted at the appropriate time of the growing season would likely yield a greater number of identifiable species. During the field surveys, 17 wildlife species or signs of such were observed: red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and coyote (Canis latrans). For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), special-status wildlife species are those listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), listed as Fully Protected or a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare, threatened, or endangered (California Rare Plant Ranks 1B.1 and 1B.2). A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2019), the IPaC report (USFWS 2016), and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2018) was conducted for the Byron Hot Springs U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles in 2016 and again in 2018 to determine special- status species within the project area (Appendix D). Special-Status Wildlife Results of the California Natural Diversity Database and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) searches revealed 25 listed or special-status wildlife species, or species proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or the USFWS. Of these, 14 were removed from consideration due to lack of suitable habitat within or adja cent to the project site, or due to the project site being outside of the species’ known range. Of the 11 remaining species, three were observed during the field visit. These were loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, and tricolored blackbird. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists for these species on or adjacent to the site. The eight remaining species have a moderate to high potential to occur on the site due to the availability of suitable habitat on the site or due to the site occurring within the species’ known range. These include California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), Swainson’s hawk, and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-6 All raptor species found in California are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and may use the study area for nesting or foraging. Several raptors were observed on or flying over the project site during the surveys. Although raptor species have the potential to nest and forage on the project site and adjacent to the site, the study area does not provide substantially important habitat, due to its small size, that would affect raptor species from continuing to exist within the area. Special-Status Plants Results of the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society searches revealed 44 special-status plant species that have potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 27 were removed from consideration due to lack of suitable habitat within the project site, or due to the project site being outside of the species’ known range (refer to Appendix D). Eight special-status plant species have low potential to occur at the project site due to lack of appropriate soil substrates or have no documented occurrences in the vicinity. Nine special-status plant species have moderate to high potential to occur at the project site. These include alkali milk- vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens). Spiny-sepaled button-celery, recurved larkspur, brittlescale, and alkali milk-vetch have been previously documented at the Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands within the project site. There is a high level of continuity between the wetlands where these species have been previously documented and the wetlands present on the site; thus, there is a high likelihood these special- status plant species occur within suitable habitat on the project site. No special-status plants were observed during the field survey; however, the site survey was conducted at a time when special - status plants would not be evident and identifiable. 3.3.1.4 Sensitive Resources and/or Habitats Five sensitive resources or habitats occur within the study area, including vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, alkali wetlands, alkali grassland, and drainages, all of which are described above in Section 3.3.1.2. The study area is located directly adjacent to the Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands, which are an approximately 814-acre conservation easement. Numerous sensitive resources have been documented within the Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-7 3.3.1.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Wildlife corridors are landscape features, usually linear in shape, that facilitate movement of animals (or plants) over time between two or more patches of otherwise disjunct habitat. Corridors can be small and even human-made (e.g., highway underpasses, culverts, bridges), narrow linear habitat areas (e.g., riparian strips, hedgerows), or wider landscape-level extensions of habitat that ultimately connect even larger core habitat areas. Depending on the size and extent, wildlife corridors can be used during animal migration, foraging events, and juvenile dispersal, and ultimately serve to facilitate genetic exchange between core populations, provide avenues for plant seed dispersal, enable increased biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem integrity within habitat patches, and help offset the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation. Although the site is a non-linear feature, it has value as a potential wildlife corridor or habitat linkage between areas of open grassland and agricultural habitat. Brushy Creek flows from the uplands southwest of the site, through the site, and eventually drains to the San Joaquin River Delta to the northeast of project site, providing important aquatic linkages between upland and aquatic habitat. Habitat management lands on the project site have interconnected vernal pool and wetland complexes that extend onto the study area. 3.3.1.6 Aquatic Habitats and Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters The project site is located in the Lower Sacramento River watershed, within the San Joaquin Delta hydrologic unit (Hydrologic Unit Code 1804003). Aquatic features within the site include numerous seasonal wetlands, alkali wetlands, swales, and drainages that are scattered throughout the site. Brushy Creek passes through the site from the southwest and exits the site at the northern extent where it eventually flows into Italian Slough which in turn flows into Old River and the San Joaquin River Delta to the northeast of the project site. Most of these features occur in the northern and western portions of the site (Figure 3.3-1). Based on historic aerial photography and visual inspection during the site surveys, these features are only periodically inundated and tend to remain inundated for short periods, depending on the amount of rainfall in a given year. A current wetland delineation has not been completed for the site. However, based on the site assessments, several potentially jurisdictional areas were identified and are discussed above. These features are most likely considered waters of the United States and the State of California, and would therefore require permits from the CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) if impacts to these features from development of the property are unavoidable. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-8 3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA prohibits the taking, possession, sale, or transport of endangered species. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, a federal agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species could be present in the project site and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, federal agencies are required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3], 1536[4]). Projects that would result in “take” of any federally listed threatened or endangered species are required to obtain authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or USFWS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation) or Section 10(a) (incidental take permit) of FESA, depending on whether the federal government is involved in permitting or funding the project. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) regulates or prohibits taking, killing, possession of, or harm to migratory bird species listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10.13. The MBTA is an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that migrate through more than one country, and is enforced in the United States by the USFWS. Hunting of specific migratory game birds is permitted under the regulations listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 20. The MBTA was amended in 1972 to include protection for migratory birds of prey (raptors). Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) The objective of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the ACOE has the authority to regulate activity that could discharge fill or dredge material or otherwise adversely modify wetlands or other waters of the United States. The ACOE implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which, when implemented, is intended to result in no net loss of wetland values or function. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-9 Federal Clean Water Act (Section 401) The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority over wetlands through Section 401 of the CWA, the Porter-Cologne Act, California Code of Regulations Section 3831(k), and California Wetlands Conservation Policy. The CWA requires that an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States) first obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency stating that the fill is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to either grant certification or waive the requirement for permits is delegated by the SWRCB to the nine regional boards. The Central Valley RWQCB is the appointed authority for Section 401 compliance in the project area. A request for certification or waiver is submitted to the regional board at the same time that an application is filed with the ACOE. State California Endangered Species Act Under the CESA, the California Fish and Game Commission has the responsibility of maintaining a list of threatened species and endangered species. The CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern. A Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: • is extirpated (extinct) from the state or, in the case of birds, is in its primary seasonal or breeding role; • is federally listed, but not state-listed, as threatened or endangered; • meets the state definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; or • has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status. CESA prohibits the take of California-listed animals and plants in most cases, but CDFW may issue incidental take permits under special conditions. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, a state agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species could be present in the project site and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact on such species. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-10 California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513 California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 protects all birds of prey (raptors) and their eggs and nests. Section 3511 states fully protected birds or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA. Streambed Alteration Agreement Under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates activities that would alter the flow, bed, channel, or bank of streams and lakes. The limits of CDFW’s jurisdiction are defined in the code as the “bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit” (California Fish and Game Code Section 1601). In practice, the CDFW usually marks its jurisdictional limit at the top of the stream or bank, or at the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands Protection Regulations CDFW derives its authority to oversee activities that affect wetlands from state legislation. This authority includes Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code (lake and streambed alteration agreements), CESA (protection of state-listed species and their habitats, which could include wetlands), and the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act of 1976 (states a need for an affirmative and sustained public policy program directed at wetlands preservation, restoration, and enhancement). In general, the CDFW asserts authority over wetlands within the state either through review and comment on ACOE Section 404 permits, review and comment on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, preservation of state-listed species, or through stream and lakebed alteration agreements. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and each RWQCB as the principal state agencies for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. Responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs. The Central Valley RWQCB has regulatory authority over the project area. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides that “all discharges of waste into the waters of the State are privileges, not rights.” Waters of the state are defined in Section 13050(e) of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-11 saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” All dischargers are subject to regulation under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, including both point and nonpoint source dischargers. The Central Valley RWQCB has authority to implement water quality protection standards through issuance of permits for discharges to waters at locations within its juris diction, which would include the project site. As noted above, the Central Valley RWQCB is the appointed authority for Section 401 compliance in the project area. If the ACOE determines that they have no regulatory authority in the project area and also that a CWA Section 404 permit is not required, the project proponent could still be responsible for obtaining the appropriate CWA Section 401 permit or waiver from Central Valley RWQCB for impacts to waters of the state. California Environmental Quality Act Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals, and allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (i.e., species of concern) would occur. Whether a species is rare, threatened, or endangered can be legally significant because, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an agency must find an impact to be significant if a project would “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.” Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project’s potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted. Local Contra Costa County General Plan The 2005–2020 Contra Costa County General Plan was adopted in 2005. The General Plan Land Use Element Map (Contra Costa County 2005b) designates the project site as a combination of Public-Semi-Public and Open Space (indicating the habitat management lands). The private acquisition parcel located on Armstrong Road is designated Agricultural Lands. See Figure 3.9-2, Existing General Plan, in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, for the existing General Plan land use designations for the project site. The General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space elements include numerous goals and policies that apply to biological resources (Contra Costa County 2005c, 2005d). 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-12 Conservation Element Vegetation and Wildlife Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Goal 8-D To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant and wildlife habitats. Goal 8-E To protect rare, threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants, significant plant communities, and other resources which stand out as unique because of their scarcity, scientific value, aesthetic quality, or cultural significance. Attempt to achieve a significant net increase in wetland values and functions within the county over the life of the General Plan. The definition of rare, threatened, and endangered includes those definitions provided by the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Native Plant Protection Act, and California Environmental Quality Act. Goal 8-F To encourage preservation and restoration of the natural characteristics of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and adjacent lands, and recognize the role of Bay vegetation and water area in maintaining favorable climate, air and water quality, and fisheries and migratory waterfowl. Policy 8-6 Significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall be preserved. Policy 8-7 Important wildlife habitats which would be disturbed by major development shall be preserved, and corridors for wildlife migration between undeveloped lands shall be retained. Policy 8-9 Areas determined to contain significant ecological resources, particularly those containing endangered species, shall be maintained in their natural state and carefully regulated to the maximum legal extent. Acquisition of the most ecologically sensitive properties within the county by appropriate public agencies shall be encouraged. Policy 8-10 Any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is protected. Policy 8-13 The critical ecological and scenic characteristics of rangelands, woodlands, and wildlands shall be recognized and protected. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-13 Policy 8-15 Existing vegetation, both native and non-native, and wildlife habitat areas shall be retained in the major open space areas sufficient for the maintenance of a healthy balance of wildlife populations. Policy 8-17 The ecological value of wetland areas, especially the salt marshes and tidelands of the Bay and Delta, shall be recognized. Existing wetlands in the county shall be identified and regulated. Restoration of degraded wetland areas shall be encouraged and supported whenever possible. Policy 8-21 The planting of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. Policy 8-22 Applications of toxic pesticides and herbicides shall be kept at a minimum and applied in accordance with the strictest standards designed to conserve all the living resources of the county. The use of biological and other non-toxic controls shall be encouraged. Policy 8-23 Runoff of pollutants and siltation into marsh and wetland areas from outfalls serving nearby urban development shall be discouraged. Where permitted, development plans shall be designed in such a manner that no such pollutants and siltation will significantly adversely affect the value or function of wetlands. In addition, berms, gutters, or other structures should be required at the outer boundary of the buffer zones to divert runoff to sewer systems for transport out of the area. Policy 8-24 The County shall strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are adjacent to wetlands and are critical to the survival and nesting of wetland species. Policy 8-25 The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from the effects of potential industrial spills. Policy 8-27 Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the county shall be identified and protected. Measure 8-e Prior to approval of discretionary permits involving parcels within a significant ecological resource area as described in Implementation Measure 8-a, the County shall 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-14 require a biotic resources evaluation based upon field reconnaissance performed at the appropriate time of year to determine the presence or absence of rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Such evaluation will consider the potential for significant impact on these resources, and measures proposed to mitigate such impacts, where feasible, or indicate why mitigation if not feasible. Measure 8-g Require the environmental impact analysis of all significant grassland land sites proposed for development to include an early spring site reconnaissance to determine the presence of vernal pools and rare species associated with vernal pools, and document the use of any seasonal wetlands by water bird species. A general observation of such sites during the dry portion of the year shall be deemed insufficient for environmental review. Significant grasslands include generally parcels of more than 40 acres which are located in an area dominated by native or introduced grass species. Measure 8-j A setback from the edge of any wetland area may be required for any new structure. The breadth of any such setback shall be determined by the County after environmental review examining (a) the size and habitat value of the potentially affected wetland, and (b) potential impacts on the wetland, and adjacent uplands, arising out of the development and operation of the new structure. Unless environmental review indicates that greater or lesser protection is necessary or adequate, setbacks generally will be between 50 and 100 feet in breadth. Expansions or other modifications of non-habitable agriculturally-related structures existing as of 1990 shall be exempt from this setback requirement. Parcels which would be rendered un-buildable by application of this standard shall also be exempt. Measure 8-l The County shall require avoidance, minimization and/or compensatory mitigation techniques to be employed with respect to specific development projects having a potential to affect a wetland. In evaluating the level of compensation to be required with respect to any given project, (a) on-site mitigation shall be preferred to off site and in-kind mitigation shall be preferred to out-of-kind, (b) functional replacement ratios may vary to the extent necessary to incorporate a margin of safety reflecting the expected degree of success associated with the mitigation plan, and (c) acreage replacement ratios may vary depending on the relative functions and values of those wetlands being lost and those being supplied. To the extent permitted by law, the County may require 3:1 compensatory mitigation of any project affecting a “Significant Wetland.” 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-15 General Water Resources Policies Policy 8-74 Preserve watersheds and groundwater recharge areas by avoiding the placement of potential pollution sources in areas with high percolation rates. Policies to Protect and Maintain Riparian Zones Policy 8-78 Where feasible, existing natural waterways shall be protected and preserved in their natural state, and channels which already are modified shall be restored. A natural waterway is defined as a waterway which can support its own environment of vegetation, fowl, fish and reptiles, and which appears natural. Policy 8-79 Creeks and streams determined to be important and irreplaceable natural resources shall be retained in their natural state whenever possible to maintain water quality, wildlife diversity, aesthetic values, and recreation opportunities. Policy 8-91 Grading, filling , and construction activity near watercour ses shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or thermal pollution. Open Space Element Goal 9-A To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic, cultural/historic, and recreational resource lands of the county. Goal 9-B To conserve the open space and natural resources of the county through control of the direction, extent, and timing of urban growth. Goal 9-C To achieve a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the county now and for the future. Policy 9-2 Historic and scenic features, watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-16 Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance Division 816 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code defines protected trees and outlines measures that must be implemented if these trees are to be adversely affected or removed. The ordinance requires site plans for development projects to accurately depict the location, species, tree dripline, and trunk circumference of all trees with a trunk circumference of 20 inches (50 centimeters) or more, measured 4.5 feet (1.37 meters) above the ground, whose tree trunks lie within 50 feet (15.2 meters) of proposed grading or other proposed improvements or other proposed development activity (e.g., stockpiling of construction materials, fill). The ordinance also requires the site plan to clearly indicate whether individual trees are proposed to be removed, altered, or otherwise affected. Trees proposed for preservation on a site are to be fenced during construction activities. The Tree Protection Ordinance requires a tree permit for removal of 6.5- inch-diameter at breast height trees in or adjacent to riparian, foothill woodland, or oak savanna areas, or that are part of a stand of four or more trees (protected trees). Furthermore, the ordinance requires a tree permit to trench, grade, or fill within the dripline of protected trees. Accidental destruction requires adequate restitution. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) was adopted in August 2007. The HCP/NCCP offers a framework for regional conservation and development, providing for the protection of natural resources while streamlining the permitting process for take of federally and state-listed species and for mitigating impacts on sensitive habitats and resources. The County is a co-permittee of the HCP/NCCP, which is overseen by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. The HCP/NCCP provides 30-year species permits for urban development and rural infrastructure projects in eastern Contra Costa County. Impacts from these projects are offset by contributions to a Preserve System that will be managed for the benefit of 28 covered species and their habitats (ECCCHCPA 2006). The land surrounding the project site is in the HCP/NCCP’s Acquisition Analysis Zone 5 (ECCCHCPA 2006). These lands provide conservation benefits, and acquisition of these lands for the Preserve System would achieve the biological goals and objectives of the HCP/NCCP. The approximately 300-acre development of Byron Airport is a covered activity under the HCP/NCCP. Permits issued in 1992 and 1993 by the USFWS and the CDFW, respectively, authorized take of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) resulting from construction of the Byron Airport (ECCCHCPA 2006). These permits covered approximately 200 acres of impacts to natural land cover types. Approximately 112 acres of land were developed at that time and approximately 88 acres of take coverage for San Joaquin kit fox remains for the airport under these earlier permits. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP notes that future development at Byron Airport may 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-17 be mitigated through the implementation of an avoidance and preservation program in and around the airport property (rather than the County paying the mitigation fees) due to the habitat values of lands at Byron Airport (ECCCHCPA 2006). These lands are an important part of the connectivity of the HCP/NCCP Preserve System, and provide an important connection between habitat in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. 3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to biological resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G, a significant impact related to biological resources would occur if the project would: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [formerly California Department of Fish and Game] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 4. 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. 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 3.3.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.3-1. The project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Potentially Significant) 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-18 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife from Construction Three special-status wildlife species were detected during the surveys conducted for the project site, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.3. These species include loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, and tricolored blackbird. Several other special-status species have the potential to utilize the project site for nesting, foraging, cover and/or local migration routes. Although the study area has few mature trees, the project site and adjacent lands have potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and several common raptor species found in California, such as northern harrier and red -tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and also common passerine species such as western meadowlark. Annual grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting habitat for Burrowing owl. While no suitable nesting trees were identified in the proposed development areas, project construction could affect nesting raptors up to 1,000 feet away from project activities. Mature eucalyptus trees along the eastern border of the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and are within direct line of sight of the proposed project activities. Increased noise, light, and vibration associated with construction activities could negatively affect nesting success if such activities occur during the nesting season (generally March 15 through September 15, depending on species). This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 requires that a nesting bird survey be conducted and nests be avoided during construction. Additionally, six remaining special-status wildlife species have a moderate to high potential to occur on site due to the availability of suitable habitat or because the site is located within the species’ known range. These include California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. While seasonal wetland habitat suitable for longhorn fairy shrimp, venal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp is located outside the proposed aviation and non-aviation Areas, there is potential for indirect impacts to suitable habitat through sediment and water runoff into wetlands. This is a potentially significant impact. Ground-disturbing activities in grassland habitat has potential to cause direct impacts to suitable nesting and upland refuge habitat for burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. This is a potentially significant impact. MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, and MM- BIO-4 would require focused surveys to be conducted prior to project construction for burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander, respectively. Avoidance measures would be implemented if these species are detected. Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife from Operation While the proposed build-out of the project would result in removal of habitat for resident and migratory wildlife, proposed operational activities would be consistent with current aviation activities at the Byron Airport. Potential commercial and industrial activities would occur on the 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-19 eastern edge of the project site, near Runway 12/30 and existing agricultural and residential uses. There would be no significant increase in effects on wildlife on surrounding lands, including lands managed for habitat. Following any disruptions caused by construction, project operations would not further affect the amphibian species discussed above, while special status bird species may continue to utilize the majority of the project site for nesting, foraging, cover and/or local migration routes. Thus, impacts associated with the operation of the airport on special-status wildlife would be less than significant. Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species from Construction No special-status plant species were observed on the project site during the surveys; however, the site surveys was conducted when the plants were not evident or identifiable. Because there is suitable habitat for special-status plant species at the project site, and four special-status plant species have been previously documented on the adjacent Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands, there is potential for these species to be present. These include alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, Congdon’s tarplant, recurved larkspur, spiny- sepaled button-celery, diamond-petaled poppy, and Contra Costa goldfields. Grading activity and heavy machinery could potentially trample, damage, and/or remove special-status plant species and their associated seed banks. Destruction of aquatic habitat such as wetlands and vernal pools that support special-status plant species would also remove seed banks and individual plants, and altered hydrology due to project activities could affect the health of plants in the future. Thus, project-related impacts on special status plant populations would be potentially significant. Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species from Operations Operational activities associated with the build-out of the proposed project would be consistent with current activities at Byron Airport and would include maintenance of grassland habitat in airport-related areas through mowing. Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in no impact to special-status plant species. Impact 3.3-2. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Potentially Significant) Potential impacts from the project would occur to all land cover types present on site. Most areas directly adjacent to the existing airport and to the north and east of the existing runways consist of non-native annual grassland. While grasslands are not a sensitive natural community, the HCP/NCCP considers certain types of grassland, such as alkali grassland, to be sensitive. As described further in Impact 3.3-6, below, expansion of Byron Airport is a covered activity. As 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-20 such, participation in the HCP/NCCP would provide for the mitigation of grassland conversion (MM-BIO-10). Sensitive vegetation communities, including wetlands and alkali grasslands, occur within the project site and, under the HCP/NCCP, would require either avoidance or other mitigation. Sensitive resources and habitats include vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, alkali wetlands, and drainages, all of which are potentially jurisdictional features regulated by CDFW, USFWS, and ACOE. Construction of the proposed project could result in direct habitat destruction or modification, which is a potentially significant impact. MM-BIO-6 requires that a wetlands delineation is performed and avoidance buffers around potentially jurisdictional resources are established prior to construction, and also implements a setback from Brushy Creek. MM-BIO-7 requires that alkali grassland on site is avoided to the extent feasible. Implementation of MM-BIO- 6, and MM-BIO-7, and MM-BIO-10 would reduce impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.3-3. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Potentially Significant) Although a current wetland delineation has not been completed for the project site, the Biological Constraints Report completed for the project indicates that all of the seasonal wetlands, swales, drainages, and vernal pools on the site are most likely under the joint regulation of the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW (Appendix D). In consideration of this, MM-BIO-6 requires a detailed jurisdictional delineation to be performed by a qualified biologist or wetland scientist prior to project development activities. If jurisdictional features would be impacted by the project, authorization from the resource agencies listed above would be required in the form of wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement respectively). Required compensatory mitigation would provide no net loss of jurisdictional habitats. With implementation of MM-BIO-6 and necessary permitting, impacts to protected wetlands would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.3-4. 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. (Less than Significant) As described previously in Section 3.3.1.5, Brushy Creek provides a corridor from the uplands southwest of the project site to Italian Slough, Old River, and the greater San Joaquin River Delta to the northeast of the site. Adjacent conservation lands have interconnected vernal pool and 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-21 wetland complexes that extend onto the site. Additionally, the project site offers a habitat linkage between areas of open grassland and agricultural habitat. The mitigation lands on airport property are included in the HCP/NCCP to provide a corridor between habitat in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The development areas on the airport were considered in the development of the acquisition areas, including on-airport mitigation lands. Therefore, development of the airport consistent with the Byron Airport Master Plan and the HCP/NCCP would not substantially interfere with a wildlife corridor. The impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.3-5. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant) As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the County maintains ordinances, policies, and codes protecting sensitive species, habitats, and trees. The proposed project is not likely to affect trees protected by County policy. Scattered trees are present on the 11.7-acre acquisition parcel, but their potential removal would occur after acquisition by the County and would not require a permit under the County tree protection and preservation ordinance. Impacts to special-status species, wetlands, and vegetation communities would be avoided or mitigated as described in MM-BIO-1 through MM- BIO-9. Thus, the project would comply with County General Plan goals and policies to analyze and protect biological resources. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.3-6. 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. (Less than Significant) The project site is within the area covered by the HCP/NCCP. The majority of the County-owned property at Byron Airport, approximately 934 acres, is managed by the County Airports Division as habitat. The conservation easements for the airport predate the HCP/NCCP, but are generally consistent with the HCP/NCCP’s guiding principles. The project would not affect the adjacent lands preserved under the conservation easement. Additional build-out and development of Byron Airport is identified as a covered activity in the HCP/NCCP. Permits issued in 1992 and 1993 by the USFWS and the CDFW, respectively, authorized take of San Joaquin kit fox resulting from construction of the Byron Airport (ECCCHCPA 2006). These permits covered approximately 200 acres of impacts to natural land cover types. Approximately 112 acres of land was developed at that time and approximately 88 acres of take coverage for San Joaquin kit fox remains for the airport under these earlier permits. The HCP/NCCP details that development above 66 acres of the aforementioned 88 acres would be mitigated at a level of 2.4 acres per acre developed. The HCP/NCCP details the implementation of 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-22 an avoidance and preservation program and identifies the land that would be impacted, avoided, and preserved in perpetuity. In addition to conservation of land occurring within airport property, the avoidance and preservation program requires conservation of land off-site as well. In addition, the proposed construction and operational activities analyzed in this EIR would comply with the conditions of the HCP/NCCP. Therefore, the potential for conflict with an approved HCP/NCCP is less than significant. 3.3.5 Mitigation Measures Coverage under the HCP/NCCP is the primary mechanism for mitigating impacts to species and habitats covered by the HCP/NCCP. MM-BIO-1a, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM- BIO-5, MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-9 conform to the avoidance and minimization measures in the HCP/NCCP. Other project-specific mitigation measures have been developed consistent with state and federal regulations and standards. MM-BIO-1 a. Swainson’s Hawk Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occurs during the nesting season (March 15–September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 1 month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy will be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site. If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring are required (see below). During the nesting season (March 15–September 15), covered activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction will be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent can apply to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for a waiver of this avoidance 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-23 measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. All active nest trees will be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non- native trees, lost to covered activities will be mitigated by the project proponent according to the requirements below. Mitigation for Loss of Nest Trees The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: • If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. AND either 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: • Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. • Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. • Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-24 cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. • Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. • Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). • Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. • Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Nesting Bird Avoidance. As part of the pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk, the qualified biologist approved by USFWS/CDFW shall also survey for native nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer from the nests shall be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and planned construction activity. Consultation with CDFW may be required to determine appropriate buffer distances. These nests shall be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist. Habitat (i.e., trees and brush) may not be removed during the breeding bird season. MM-BIO-2 Western Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey, Avoidance, Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. In accordance with Conditions on Covered Activities described in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (CDFG 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-25 ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys should take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. Surveys will take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1–August 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1– January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (CDFG 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-26 should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. MM-BIO-3 California Red-Legged Frog Minimization. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including, photos and a breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individual California red-legged frogs within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individual California red-legged frogs. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individual California red-legged frogs from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-4 California Tiger Salamander Minimization. Written notification to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, including photos and breeding habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individual California Tiger Salamander, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California tiger salamanders within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The project proponent must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-27 There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individual California tiger salamanders within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). MM-BIO-5 Rare Plant Surveys and Mitigation. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct protocol-level special-status plant surveys of the undisturbed areas of the project site for alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), spiny-sepaled button- celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), diamond-petaled poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), and Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), and any other required surveys from the HCP/NCCP application for coverage As part of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) application for coverage, the surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming periods. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the plant species in the region. These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with 2009 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey protocols. If any special-status plant species are observed during surveys, the project proponent shall notify the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity (i.e., East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy) of the construction schedule so as to allow the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity the option to salvage the population(s) in accordance with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 3.10 (Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable) described below. Additionally, the project proponent shall confirm with the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity that the take limits of the HCP/NCCP for the species identified have not been reached. The following special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site are covered by the HCP/NCCP: brittlescale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, and recurved larkspur. Alkali milk-vetch, diamond-petaled poppy, and Contra Costa goldfields are analyzed in the HCP/NCCP but are “no take” species, and avoidance is the only acceptable mitigation measure. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-28 Congdon’s tarplant and spiny-sepaled button-celery are not addressed in the HCP/NCCP. For these plants, mitigation shall consist of, in order of preference, (1) avoidance, (2) salvage and transplant as described below, or (3) off-site habitat enhancement or restoration in consultation with CDFW. Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable (Covered Species) Perennial Covered Plants Where impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by approved covered activities, the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity has the option of salvaging the covered plants. Salvage methods for perennial species will be tested for whole individuals, cuttings, and seeds. Salvage measures will include the evaluation of techniques for transplanting as well as germinating seed in garden or greenhouse and then transplanting to suitable habitat sites in the field. Techniques will be tested for each species, and appropriate methods will be identified through research and adaptive management. Where plants are transplanted or seeds distributed to the field they shall be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. Field trials will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different methods and determine the best methods to establish new populations. New populations will be located such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting within the preserves will only minimally disturb existing native vegetation and soils. Supplemental watering may be provided as necessary to increase the chances of successful establishment, but must be removed following initial population establishment. See also “All Covered Plants,” below. Annual Covered Plants For annual covered plants, mature seeds will be collected from all individuals for which impacts cannot be avoided (or if the population is large, a representative sample of individuals). If storage is necessary, seed storage studies shall be conducted to determine the best storage techniques for each species. If needed, studies will be conducted on seed germinated and plants grown to maturity in garden or greenhouse to propagate larger numbers of seed. Seed propagation methods will ensure that genetic variation is not substantially affected by propagation (i.e., selection for plants best adapted to cultivated conditions). Field 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-29 studies will be conducted through the Adaptive Management Program to determine the efficacy and best approach to dispersal of seed into suitable habitat. Where seeds are distributed to the field, they will be located in preserves in suitable habitat to establish new populations. If seed collection methods fail (e.g., due to excessive seed predation by insects), alternative propagation techniques shall be necessary. See also “All Covered Plants,” below. All Covered Plants All salvage operations will be conducted by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. To ensure enough time to plan salvage operations, project proponents will notify the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy of their schedule for removing the covered plant population. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy may conduct investigations into the efficacy of salvaging seeds from the soil seed bank for both perennial and annual species. The soil seed bank may add to the genetic variability of the population. Covered species may be separated from the soil though garden/greenhouse germination or other appropriate means. Topsoil taken from impact sites will not be distributed into preserves because of the risk of spreading new non-native and invasive plants to preserves. The HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity will transplant new populations such that they constitute separate populations and do not become part of an existing population of the species, as measured by the potential for genetic exchange among individuals through pollen or propagule (e.g., seed, fruit) dispersal. Transplanting or seeding “receptor” sites (i.e., habitat suitable for establishing a new population) should be carefully selected on the basis of physical, biological, and logistical considerations (Fiedler and Laven 1996); some examples of these are listed below: • Historic range of the species. • Soil type. • Soil moisture. • Topographic position, including slope and aspect. • Site hydrology. • Mycorrhizal associates (this may be important for Mount Diablo manzanita). • Presence or absence of typical associated plant species. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-30 • Presence or absence of herbivores or plant competitors. • Site accessibility for establishment, monitoring, and protection from trampling by cattle or trail users. MM-BIO-6 a. Wetlands and Waters of the United States or State. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activity, Contra Costa County (County) shall retain a qualified biologist or wetland scientist to prepare a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to determine the extent of potentially jurisdictional features within the project disturbance area. Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States or waters of the state shall require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the form of a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the form of a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such permits typically include measures to avoid and minimize or mitigate impacts. Where avoidance of jurisdictional wetlands or waters is not feasible, replacement of resources is required in the form of restoration or creation. The project shall seek coverage under the East Contra Costa County HCP/ NCCP and will mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands. If neither avoidance nor coverage under the HCP/NCCP is feasible, the County shall comply with the requirements of the 404 permit coverage for on- or off-site mitigation, at a replacement ration of no less than 1:1. b. Brushy Creek Setback. Per the requirements of the HCP/NCCP and Contra Costa County General Plan policy, a development setback of 75 feet from Brushy Creek (measured from top of bank) is required. Note that a lesser setback (for an area less than 300 linear feet) may be approved in consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-7 Alkali Grassland Avoidance and Mitigation. A portion of the aviation development area, adjacent to the existing facilities, includes alkali grassland. Ultimate development of this site shall require either avoidance, or establishment of like alkali grassland outside of the development area, which shall be made under consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Because this area is relatively disturbed, is isolated from similar habitat, and is maintained on an on-going basis by airport staff, it does not represent an exemplary patch of alkali grassland. Thus, mitigation ratios shall not exceed 1:0.5 (acres disturbed, acres restored/created). Mitigation ratios for 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-31 impacts to alkali grassland will be determined in consultation with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. MM-BIO-8 San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/ CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1999). Preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens will be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys will be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den will be monitored for 3 days by a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. • Unoccupied dens should be destroyed immediately to pre vent subsequent use. • If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately. The den will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. • If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den will be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-32 biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances will be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities will occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens will be at least 50 feet and will be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens will be at least 100 feet and will be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. MM-BIO-9 Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Covered Shrimp Preconstruction Survey, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having suitable shrimp habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of covered shrimp and/or habitat features and evaluate use by listed shrimp in accordance with modified USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1996b). Project proponents are required to conduct USFWS protocol surveys in 1 year (rather than 2) to determine presence or absence of listed shrimp species. If covered shrimp are absent from the site, there are no further requirements related to covered shrimp. If covered shrimp are present, the following avoidance and minimization and construction monitoring measures are required. To the maximum extent practicable, impacts on occupied habitat of covered shrimp will be avoided by implementing the following measures based on existing mitigation standards (USFWS 1996a). • If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, establish a buffer (described below) from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp. Alternatively, at the request of the project proponent, representatives of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and USFWS may conduct site visits to inspect the particular characteristics of specific project sites and may approve reductions of the buffer. Buffer reductions may be approved for all or portions of the site whenever reduced setbacks will maintain the 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-33 hydrology of the seasonal wetland and achieve the same or greater habitat values as would be achieved by the original buffer. • Activities inconsistent with the maintenance of seasonal wetlands within the buffers and disturbance of the on-site watershed will be prohibited. Inconsistent activities include altering existing topography; placing new structures within the buffers; dumping, burning, and/or burying garbage or any other wastes or fill materials; building new roads or trails; removing or disturbing existing native vegetation; installing storm drains; and using pesticides or other toxic chemicals. • Filling of seasonal wetlands, if unavoidable, will be delayed until pools are dry and samples from the top 4 inches of wetland soils are collected. Soil collection will be sufficient to include a representative sample of plant and animal life present in the wetland by incorporating seeds, cysts, eggs, spores, and similar inocula. The amount of soil collected will be determined by the size of the wetland filled and the variation in physical and biological conditions within the wetland. The number and size of samples will be sufficient to capture this variation. For very small wetlands it may be most cost effective to simply collect all topsoil. These samples will be provided to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy so that the soil can be translocated to suitable habitat within the inventory area unoccupied by covered shrimp or used to inoculate newly created seasonal wetlands on preserve lands. • Seasonal wetlands occupied by covered shrimp that are filled will be offset by preserving or acquiring seasonal wetlands occupied by the covered shrimp species and restoring habitat suitable for the covered shrimp species in accordance with Conservation Measure 3.8. Such mitigation will supersede requirements for mitigation of impacts on wetland habitat when covered species are present. If suitable habitat for covered shrimp will be retained on site, project proponents will establish a buffer from the outer edge of all hydric vegetation associated with seasonal wetlands occupied (or assumed to be occupied) by covered shrimp. This buffer zone will be determined in the field by the biologists as the immediate watershed feeding the seasonal wetland or a minimum of 50 feet, whichever is greater. Buffers will be marked by brightly colored fencing or flagging throughout the construction process. Activities will be prohibited within this buffer in accordance with the minimization measure above. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-34 Construction personnel will be trained to avoid affecting shrimp. A qualified biologist approved by USFWS will inform all construction personnel about the life history of covered shrimp, the importance of avoiding their habitat, and the terms and conditions of the HCP/NCCP related to avoiding and minimizing impacts on covered shrimp. MM-BIO-10 Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit Coverage and Take Authorization. Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, the project proponent shall obtain permit coverage under the HCP/NCCP. The applicant will receive take authorization under the County’s incidental take permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (permit number: TE 160958-0) and the County’s incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issued pursuant to California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 2835 (permit number 2835-2007-01-03). The project proponent shall comply with all applicable HCP/NCCP requirements, including, but not limited to, submitting a complete HCP/NCCP application package (see Chapter 6.2 of the HCP/NCCP), complying with applicable avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures (see Chapter 6.4 of the HCP/NCCP), and paying the HCP/NCCP development fee (see Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP). Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees as detailed in the approved HCP/NCCP application package will be paid. However, rather than pay applicable fees, the County may choose to mitigate impacts from future development at the Byron Airport by implementing an avoidance and preservation program in and around the airport property as detailed in the HCP/NCCP. Prior to construction or any ground disturbance, and in accordance with the approved HCP/NCCP application package, a construction monitoring plan shall be submitted to CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for review and approval in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. 3.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-9 through MM- BIO-10 would reduce Impact 3.3-1 to less than significant. Implementation of MM- BIO-6, and MM- BIO-7, and MM-BIOI-10 would reduce Impact 3.3-2 to less than significant. Implementation of MM- BIO-6 would reduce Impact 3.3-3 to less than significant. Overall, with implementation of mitigation measures, project impacts to special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands would be less than significant. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-35 3.3.7 Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed project would result in the potential removal of, conversion of, or other impacts to 137.35 acres of annual grassland, 1.45 acres of alkali grassland, 16.66 acres of ruderal grassland, 2.33 acres of seasonal wetland, 2.05 acres of alkali wetland, 1.65 acres of urban habitat, and 1.27 acres of stream habitat. Uses of the additional build-out at the airport would be consistent with on-going activities at the current airport and would not significantly increase operational noise, light, or other indirect factors that may affect local and migratory wildlife. In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in significant or unavoidable cumulative impacts when considered on a regional scale. 3.3.8 References Cited CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 7, 2012. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. “California Natural Diversity Database.” Rarefind, Version 5 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento, California: CDFW. Accessed July 2015 and November 2018. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed July 2015 and November 2018. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Contra Costa County. 2005a. Byron Airport Master Plan. Prepared for Contra Costa County by Leigh Fischer Associates. June 2005. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/3958/Byron- Airport-Master-Plan. Contra Costa County. 2005b. “Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Element Map.” Prepared by the Department of Conservation & Development. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30949/Land-Use-Element- Map?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005c. Contra Costa County General Plan – Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30918/ Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-36 Contra Costa County. 2005d. Contra Costa County General Plan – Open Space Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30919/ Ch9-Open-Space-Element?bidId=. ECCCHCPA (East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association). 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. October 2006. Fiedler P.L., and R.D. Laven. 1996. “Selecting Reintroduction Sites.” In D.A. Falk, C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell (Eds.), Restoring Diversity: Strategies for the Reintroduction of Endangered Plants, pp. 157–169. Island Press: Washington, DC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range. Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. June 1999. USFWS. 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Sacramento, California. May 31, 2015. USFWS. 2016. “Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. Environmental Conservation Online System.” Accessed January 20, 2016. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Date: 10/16/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.3-1_LandCover.mxdField-Verified Land Cover Map Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: Bing Maps 2018, Mead & Hunt 2015 0 1,000500Feet Project Boundary Development Areas Non-Aviation Aviation Development Reserve Low Intensity Use Biological Study Area Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Annual Grassland Alkali Grassland Seasonal Wetland Alkali Wetland Ruderal Urban Roadside Drainage Streams/Drainage FIGURE 3.3-1 3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.3-38 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-1 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing cultural resources of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Prehistoric resources include sites and artifacts associated with the indigenous, non-Euro-American population, generally prior to contact with people of European descent. Historical resources consist of structures, features, artifacts, and sites that date from Euro- American settlement of the region. This section is based on the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the project by Dudek in May 2019 (Appendix E). 3.4.1 Existing Conditions The 1,319-acre project site is located in southeastern Contra Costa County, approximately 2.5 miles south of the community of Byron, California. Byron Airport is located on the western edge of the flat Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta agricultural lands, giving way to rolling hills and grasslands west of the airport. The project site is relatively flat land that contains two nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. Aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the “V” formed by the two runways, with approximately 10 acres of aircraft storage area, 4 acres of apron, 125,000 square feet of hangars, and 2,400 square feet of office space. The majority of these facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. The project site historically supported agricultural fields from at least 1949 until 1966, when the project site was graded for roads and runways for a previous private airport facility. On-site elevations range from 30 to 100 feet above mean sea level. Approximately 814 acres of airport property south and west of the airfield are set aside as a wildlife preserve. An existing residence is located within the northeast corner of the project site, between the existing airport property and the Byron Bethany Irrigation District Canal. The airport owns an additional 120 acres north of Armstrong Road that is not considered part of the project site or the cultural resources study area. 3.4.1.1 Prehistory Background In general, the archaeology and prehistory of the Central Valley are not well understood. In addition, much of the archaeological material from the valley area has not been found in context, having been scavenged from the surface and placed in private collections. Early and widespread agricultural use of the valley floor has destroyed much of the bottomland archaeology, and siltation has most likely buried many resources well below the surface sediments. On the valley floor, in the southern Central Valley, fluted projectile points were found at the Witt Site, suggesting possible Clovis occupation in the region earlier than 11,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-2 Other evidence for Early Holocene occupation around valley lakes has been recovered from Buena Vista Lake (Appendix E). More than two decades ago, a general chronological framework was provided by Moratto (1984) that encompasses the Central Valley. Since then, numerous additional studies have provided data to supplement and refine this framework. Building on this previous research, the following chronology contains four general time frames with associated periods, dates, and marker traits: Paleoindian (Paleoindian Period), Early Archaic (Early Period), Middle Archaic (Middle Period), and Late Archaic (Late Period). A description of each of these periods is presented in Appendix E. The region surrounding the project site would have been at the southern extent of Northern Valley Yokut tribal territory during the ethnohistoric period. This group inhabited the lower San Joaquin River watershed and its tributaries extending from Calaveras River in the north to approximately the large bend of the San Joaquin River eastward near Mendota. The lower San Joaquin River meanders through the territory making bends, sloughs, and marshes full of tule reeds as it meanders. Farther from the rivers and marshes, the valley floor would have been dry and sparsely vegetated (Appendix E). Northern Valley Yokut habitation areas were most commonly situated in close proximity to the San Joaquin River and its major tributaries, more often on the east side of the river. West of the river populations were much sparser and concentrated in the foothills on minor waterways. This focus on waterways can also be seen in their dietary resources, which included various fish, waterfowl, antelope, elk, acorns, tule roots, and various seeds. In particular, and in contrast to their San Joaquin Valley Yokut neighbors, salmon was an abundant food during the fall spawning and in springtime. The focus on fishing is also seen in the material culture consisting of net sinkers and harpoons, likely used from rafts constructed from tule reed bundles (Appendix E). Traditional village were perched on top of low mounds on or near riverbanks. Northern Valley Yokut dwellings were constructed of tule reed woven mats placed over a pole frame oval or round structure. They were usually 25–40 feet in diameter and would belong to a single family. This is in contrast to the larger multifamily dwellings erected sometimes by the Southern Yokuts. In addition to dwellings, earth covered ceremonial sweat lodges were constructed. There was a high level of sedentism due to abundant riverine resources, though there were times of seasonal disbandment for harvesting wild plant resources such as acorns and seeds (Appendix E). The Northern Valley Yokuts saw sharp and devastating decline from disease and relocation to coastal missions nearly immediately after Spanish contact. This only increased with the large influx of cattle ranching and Anglos Americans after the gold rush. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-3 3.4.1.2 History of the Project Area The following sections describe the relevant history of California, the region, and the project vicinity. Spanish Period (1769–1822) Gaspar de Portolá entered San Francisco Bay in 1769. Additional explorations of San Francisco Bay and the plains to the east were conducted by Captain Pedro Fages in 1772 and Juan Bautista De Anza in 1776. In 1808, Lieutenant Gabriel Moragain led the first Spanish expedition into the Sacramento Valley. This group explored areas in the American, Calaveras, Cosumnes, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne, Sacramento, and Stanislaus river watersheds. The most recent Spanish expedition into this region was conducted by Luis Arguello in 1817. This group traveled up the Sacramento River to the mouth of the Feather River. Spanish missionization of Alta California was initiated at San Diego in 1769. A total of 21 missions were constructed by the Dominican and Franciscan orders between 1769 and 1823. Missions in the region included San Francisco de Asís (1776), Santa Clara de Asís (1776), San José de Guadalupe (1797 in Alameda County), San Rafael Arcángel (1817 in Marin County), and San Francisco Solano (1823 in Sonoma County) (Grunsky 1989). While missionization had a detrimental effect on tribes throughout the region, there is no record of forcible transport of Nisenan communities by the Spanish to the missions. Mexican Period (1822–1848) Mexico’s separation from the Spanish empire in 1821 and the secularization of the California missions in the 1830s caused further disruptions to native populations. Following establishment of the Mexican republic, the government seized many of the lands belonging to Native Americans, providing them as parts of larger land grants to affluent Mexican citizens and rancheros. Captain John Sutter was granted the two largest areas of land in the Sacramento Valley area. Sutter founded New Helvetia, a trading and agricultural empire, in 1839. The headqu arters was located within Valley Nisenan territory at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers. The 1833 Secularization Act passed by the Mexican Congress ordered half of all mission lands to be transferred to the Native Americans, and the other half to remain in trust and managed by an appointed administrator. These orders were never implemented due to several factors that conspired to prevent the Native Americans from regaining their patrimony. American fur trappers and traders conducted a number of exploratory intrusions into west Sierra Nevada Mexican territory. Notably, in 1826, Jedediah Smith led a small party of trappers in an expedition along the Sierra Nevada range, eventually entering the Sacramento Valley in 1827. This group covered the area along the American and Cosumnes rivers. From these travels, maps of this 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-4 inhospitable terrain were created and disseminated, providing for the waves of European prospectors, ranchers, and settlers who would come in the following decades. American Period (Post-1848) California has been inexorably shaped by the mining of precious metals and other minerals. The discovery of gold in January of 1848 at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, on the South Fork of the American River, led to extensive and enduring changes to California’s physical and cultural landscapes. The California gold rush, prompted by news of the find at Sutter’s Mill, led to what has been characterized as the greatest mass migration in American history. Within months of the initial discovery, gold was being collected in the gravel bars of the North, Middle, and South Forks of the American River, and extensive placer mining was occurring in nearly every adjacent gulch and ravine. The effects of these activities are still evident in the form of tailin gs, ditches, and other mining features scattered throughout these areas. Mining can also be credited for the location and names of most of the towns and communities in the region, the placement of early transportation and communication corridors between the western Sierra Nevada, Sacramento, and San Francisco, and the subsequent development of agriculture and ranching throughout the foothills and valley (Appendix E). As the allure of gold mining declined, agriculture and ranching in the Central Valley became more prominent and productive economic pursuits in the region (Davis 1975). Stockton, located approximately 20 miles from the project site, turned into the valley’s major agricultural shipping point. With the grain exporting opportunities of World War II, the city accelerated in growth (Haslam et al. 1993) to become the prominent urban center in the vicinity of the project site. In 1868, Orange Risdon Jr. and Lewis Risdon Mead took initial steps to develop and market the Byron Hot Springs into a rural health resort. The town of Byron was founded in 1878, concurrently with the introduction of track laid through the area by the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company (East County Historical Society). A hotel, which remarkably for the time had hot and cold water, was constructed at the site of the hot springs in 1888. This initial hotel burned down in 1901 and, again, a re-built hotel burned in 1912 (Kyle 2002). The third hotel, having enjoyed decades of popularity, closed in 1938 following broader trends of diminished public interest in mineral springs as health destinations. In 1969, 2,200 acres of land were inundated next to the project site to create a temporary storage pool and regulating reservoir within the tidally influenced region of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for the California Aqueduct, creating the Clifton Court Forebay (Kano 1990). 3.4.1.3 Records Search A records search was completed for a 0.5-mile radius around the project site by staff at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, California, on March 22, 2016. The 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-5 records search indicated that 55 previous cultural resources technical investigations have been conducted in this area. Of these studies, nine cover all or a portion of the project site. The records search identified one cultural resource, P-07-002547 (Byron Bethany Irrigation District Main Canal No. 9), within the project development area; four cultural resources (P-07-000320, P-07- 000321, P-07- 002707, and P-07-002708) located within the Byron Airport parcel boundary; and an additional seven cultural resources occur within the 0.5-mile search radius of the project site. Of the 12 previously recorded resources, there is one prehistoric artifact scatter, seven historic-age canals/aqueducts, one historic railroad segment, one historic road segment, one historic rock foundation, and one unknown resource due to missing record. Two (P-07-002547 and P-07- 000813) of the 12 cultural resources have been evaluated and were determined not eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) listing. P-07-000320/CA-CCO-550 This historic site was originally recorded by L.K. Napton and E.A. Greathouse in 1987 as part of the cultural resource investigation of the East Contra Costa County Airport Five-Year Development Plan Project. The site consists of a rock foundation composed of 54 large sandstone rocks with associated historic refuse. The crew reported site disturbance and attributed the disturbances to rodent bioturbation activities. In 2005, Sean Dexter and Armando Cuellar revisited the site as part of the cultural resources reconnaissance for the Byron Airport Master Plan. The crew observed that the site had been entirely destroyed by construction of a Byron Airport runway and taxiway. No evidence of the site remains. P-07-000321/CA-CCO-551 This prehistoric site was originally recorded by L.K. Napton and E.A. Greathouse in 1987 as part of the cultural resource investigation of the East Contra Costa County Airport Five-Year Development Plan Project. The site consists of a hammerstone, core, hand stone fragment, and lithic flakes. The crew noted that the site had been disturbed by washes, drainage overflow, and possibly impacted from previous gas line construction for the airport. Miller, Crabtree, Oshins, and Chavez revisited the site in 1990. They did not relocate the original lithic flakes or core; however, the crew did observe a hammerstone fragment, possible hand stone, and fire-affected rock fragments with charcoal. In 2005, Sean Dexter and Armando Cuellar revisited the site as part of the cultural resources reconnaissance for the Byron Airport Master Plan. It was observed that the site had been disturbed by construction of Falcon Way and construction activities associated with the gas line found within the site boundary. Despite the disturbances, there is still potential for the site to contain an undisturbed component that could be significant. The archaeologists recommended archaeological testing for this site to determine if the site is eligible for listing on the CRHR. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-6 P-07-002547/CA-CCO-738 This historic resource was first recorded by Tracy Bakic and Cinder Baker in 2001. This resource consists of the Byron Bethany Irrigation District Main Canal No. 9. This segment of the canal is located on the southeast side of the California Aqueduct. Baker, of Par Environmental, conducted an evaluation of the canal to determine if the historic resource was significant. The Byron Bethany Irrigation District site was determined not eligible for listing on the CRHR or under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria. Sean Dexter and Armando Cueller also conducted a cultural reconnaissance in 2005 for three segments of the canal located within Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 001-011-011, 001-031-014, 001-031-013, and 001-031-016) as part of the cultural resources reconnaissance for the Byron Airport Master Plan. The crew observed that Segment 2 appears to have been completely rebuilt circa 1990 for construction of the main Byron Airport runway; Segment 3 is a short segment that has been abandoned since 1990; and Segment 4 showed evidence of being partially rebuilt in 1968 and around 1990 for construction of Byron Airport. The 2005 study determined that the three segments are not eligible for listing on the CRHR or under CEQA criteria. P-07-002707 This historic feature was recorded by Sean Dexter and Armando Cueller in 2005, as part of the cultural resources reconnaissance for the Byron Airport Master Plan. The resource consists of an exposed 8.5-inch diameter steel pipe aqueduct which is supported on concrete cradles. This aqueduct pipe may date back to the original 1917 Byron Bethany Irrigation District system as it is depicted as emerging from the Irrigation District Main Canal No. 9 on the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The archaeologists recommended archaeological investigations to determine if this resource is eligible on the CRHR. P-07-002708 This historic resource was recorded in 2005 by Sean Dexter and Armando Cueller, as part of the cultural resources reconnaissance for the Byron Airport Master Plan. This resource consists of an abandoned segment of Byron Hot Springs Road. The crew observed that the road has been stripped of all pavement and was abandoned during the construction of Byron Airport in the early 1990s. South of Runway 5-23, within the airport fencing area, a remnant of the road is still visible. The archaeologists recommended archaeological investigations to determine if this resource is eligible on the CRHR. 3.4.1.4 Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Consultation A search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested on February 22, 2016, for the project site. The NAHC results, received March 1, 2016, 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-7 did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in or near the project site. The NAHC also provided a contact list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project site. Following the NAHC response, letters were sent on April 8, 2016, to the listed tribal representatives to solicit information, opinions, or concerns relating to potential project impacts. These letters contain a brief description of the project, reference maps, and a summary of the NAHC SLF search results. No response to these outreach attempts has been received to date. In addition, the County sent letters to all Native American tribes that have requested notification, per Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill 18. A request for consultation was received from Wilton Rancheria on August 30, 2017. The County emailed the tribal contact on September 7, 2017, and again on February 22, 2018, attempting to coordinate consultation. No response was received at that time. Consultation is considered closed. During the public comment period for the Draft EIR, an additional consultation request letter was received by the County from the Wilton Rancheria on July 14, 2021. The County re-opened consultation on September 22, 2021. Although no tribal cultural resources were identified within the project site, minor modifications were made to the mitigation measures addressing accidental discovery of tribal cultural resources. Consultation was again closed on January 21, 2022. 3.4.1.5 Pedestrian Survey An intensive-level pedestrian survey of most of the entire project site was conducted on May 10, 2016, using standard archaeological procedures and techniques. One previously recorded resource, P-07-002547, was observed during the field survey. This resource occurs within the aviation development area. One newly identified built environment feature (temporarily designated as BA- KL-1) was identified within the project development area, located north of the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. BA-KL-1 consists of a historic wooden corral that is possibly associated with the ranch/agricultural property located directly north (outside of Byron Airport parcel boundary) of the corral. Documentation of BA-KL-1 complied with the Office of Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716- 44740) and the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a). Newly identified BA-KL-1 was recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation Form DPR 523L (Series 1/95) Continuation Sheet, using the Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (Office of Historic Preservation 1995). Dudek determined that data potential for BA-KL-1 has been exhausted through field-level recordation. The resource does not have the potential to further yield information locally, regionally, or nationally beyond field level. BA-KL-1 is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or the local register and is not significant under CEQA. The Department of 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-8 Parks and Recreation form will be submitted to the Northwest Information Center. No other cultural resources, historical resources, or historic properties were identified in the project site. A subsequent pedestrian survey was conducted on November 28, 2018, of the 11.7-acre parcel for potential acquisition, and the potential off-site infrastructure locations (the seven study intersections discussed in Section 3.13, Transportation, and the roadway segments of Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road between the airport and Byron Highway). No additional cultural resources were observed in this additional area. 3.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal, state, and local laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and state significance criteria generally focus on the resource’s integrity and uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potent ial to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal significance criteria may be considered significant by state criteria. The laws and regulations seek to mitigate impacts on significant prehistoric or historic resources. The federal, state, and local laws and guidelines for protecting historic resources are summarized below. Federal National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the NRHP as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP, or determined eligible for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Under Section 106 of the act and its implementing regulations, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions, or those they fund or permit, on properties that may be eligible for listing or that are listed in the NRHP. The regulations in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.4, describe the criteria to evaluate cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Properties may be listed in the NRHP if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and they: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-9 C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. These factors are known as Criteria A, B, C, and D. In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, except in exceptional circumstances. Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, which is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of the changes to the property. Archaeological sites are generally evaluated under Criterion D, which concerns the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. The Section 106 review process, typically undertaken between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of issuing a Section 404 permit and the State Historic Preservation Officer, involves a four- step procedure: • Initiate the Section 106 process by establishing the undertaking, developing a plan for public involvement, and identifying other consulting parties. • Identify historic properties by determining the scope of efforts, identifying cultural resources, and evaluating their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. • Assess adverse effects by applying the criteria of adverse effect on historic properties (resources that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP). • Resolve adverse effects by consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other consulting agencies, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary, to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties. The Department of the Interior has set forth Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. These standards and guidelines are not regulatory and do not set or interpret agency policy. A project that follows the standards and guidelines generally shall be considered mitigated to a less-than-significant level, according to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Because it is not a federal agency, Contra Costa County is not subject to the National Historical Preservation Act, including Section 106. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-10 State California Environmental Quality Act Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, Section 21083.2, requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” “Historical resource” is a term of art with a defined statutory meaning (PRC 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a], 15064.5[b]). The term embraces any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC 5024.1; 14 CCR 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished or has lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource potentially eligible for the CRHR. In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a][3]). In general, a historical resource, under this approach, is defined as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that: A. Is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California; and B. Meets any of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-11 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][3]). These factors are known as Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 and parallel Criteria A, B, C, and D under the National Historic Preservation Act. The fact that a resource is not listed or determined to be eligible for listing does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource (PRC 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a][4]). CEQA also distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological sites that meet the definition of a historical resource, as described above, and unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA, an archaeological resource is considered “unique” if it: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC 21083.2[g]). CEQA states that if a proposed project would result in an impact that might cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, then an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared, and mitigation measures and alternatives must be considered. A “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]). The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) also provides specific guidance on the treatment of archaeological resources, depending on whether they meet the definition of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource. If the site meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource, it must be treated in accordance with the provisions of PRC 21083.2. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) sets forth principles relevant to means of mitigating impacts on historical resources. It provides as follows: (1) Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-12 of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project’s impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant. (2) In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs, or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. (3) Public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site: (A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid con flict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site. (B) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site. 4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. (C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. If an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-13 (D) Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. CEQA and the California Public Records Act restrict the amount of information regarding cultural resources that can be disclosed in an EIR in order to avoid the possibility that such resources could be subject to vandalism or other damage (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin [2011] 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 219). The state CEQA Guidelines prohibit an EIR from including “information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.” (14 CCR 15120[d]). In turn, California Government Code (GC) Section 6254 of the California Public Records Act lists as exempt from public disclosure any records “of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.933 of the [California] Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency” (GC Section 6254[r]). The Public Records Act also generally prohibits disclosure of archaeological records. GC Section 6254.10 provides: “Nothing in [the California Public Records Act] requires disclosure of records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of…a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.” PRC, Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993, list the Native American places, features, and objects, the records of which are not to be publicly disclosed under the California P ublic Records Act: “any Native American sanctified cemetery, places of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property” (Section 5097.9) and any “Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources…, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site, any inscriptions made by Native Americans at such a site, any archaeological or historic Native American rock art, or any archaeological or historic feature of a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site” (Section 5097.993[a][1]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as identified in a timely manner by the NAHC. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-14 Guidelines directs the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Senate Bill 297 This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. Senate Bill 297 has been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. Senate Bill 18 Senate Bill 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans (defined in GC Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in GC Section 65450 et seq.). Assembly Bill 52 AB 52 requires consultation with Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area in which a project requiring CEQA review is proposed if those tribes have requested to be informed of such proposed projects. The intention of such consultation is to avoid adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs). This law is in addition to legislation protecting archaeological resources associated with California Native American tribes. In addition, AB 52 defines TCRs as a significant environmental issue under CEQA. AB 52 applies to all projects initiating environmental review in or after July 2015. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocols to address any human remains that may be discovered. The code states the following: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-15 and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. California Environmental Quality Act Under CEQA, state and public agencies are required to investigate mitigation measures that would reduce significant environmental effects of proposed projects. If paleontological resources are identified during an environmental assessment of a project, then the sponsoring agency must take the resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 Section 5097.5 of the PRC protects historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological sites, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature that is situated on land owned by, or in the jurisdiction of, the State of California, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Local Contra Costa County General Plan The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains the following goal and policies pertaining to archaeological and historic cultural resources (Contra Costa County 2005): Goal 9-G To identify and preserve important archaeological and historic resources within the county. Policy 9-28 Areas which have identifiable and important archaeologic or historic significance shall be preserved for such uses, preferably in public ownership. Policy 9-29 Buildings or structures that have visual merit and historic value shall be protected. Policy 9-30 Development surrounding areas of historic significance shall have compatible and high-quality design in order to protect and enhance the historic quality of the area. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-16 Policy 9-31 Within the Southeast County area, applicants for subdivision or land use permits to allow non-residential uses shall provide information to the County on the nature and extent of the archaeological resources that exist in the area. The County Planning Agency shall be responsible for determining the balance between multiple use of the land and protection of resources. 3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G, a significant impact would occur if the project would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. 4. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 3.4.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.4-1. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Potentially Significant) The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-17 can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance. In order to best mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources, a reasonable, good-faith effort must be applied to determining their historical character and eligibility for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1; 14 CCR 4852). Based on existing records (records search and historic aerials), the eastern portion of the project site was used for agriculture from approximately the early 1900s to 1993. The majority of the Byron Airport property, except for the northwestern portion where a smaller airport was located from 1966 to 1993, was left as open grasslands until Byron Airport was built. The newly recorded historic-age resource, BA-KL-1, consists of a wooden corral. The records indicate that the corral is associated with the property located just north of the resource. According to historic topographic maps, the property served as a school from 1914 to 1948. By 1955, and on, the school was no longer being used as such. Only a building location is shown on the maps. The earliest hist oric aerial for the property is 1949. This photograph shows the property as being an agricultural residence/private property with the wooden corral located just south of the property. Photographs from 1949, 1959, 1966, 1968, 1979, 1993, 2005, 2009, and 2010 do not reveal any changes to the property and corral locations. The residence is outside of the project site and would not be impacted by the project. CEQA Guidelines were used in determining the significance of BA-KL-1. It was found that BA- KL-1, while speaking to the presence and types of activities that occurred historically concerning agriculture, is not associated with any known significant events locally, regionally, or nationally (Criterion 1); the wooden corral, on its own, does not provide information that would be associated with the lives of any important people locally, regionally, or nationally (Criterion 2); it does not contain intact or individual distinction (Criterion 3); and since all data potential for BA-KL-1 has been exhausted through field-level recordation, this resource does not have the potential to further yield information locally, regionally, or nationally (Criterion 4). The resource is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or the local register and is not significant under CEQA. California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 series forms were completed for the site (confidential appendix to the Cultural Resources Study). As such, no further work is recommended for this resource. Byron Bethany Irrigation District Main Canal No. 9 was evaluated by Par Environmental in 2001 and Condor Country Consulting in 2005 as not being eligible for listing under the NRHP or CRHR. The canal does not retain sufficient integrity after being impacted by construction of Byron Airport in the early 1990s. The canal also lacks association with any significant important people locally, regionally, or nationally. In addition to the wooden corral and Byron Bethany Irrigation District Main Canal No. 9, which were found in the project site, four cultural resources (P-07-000320, P- 07-000321, P-07-002707, and P-07-002708) are recorded within the Byron Airport parcel boundary, and an additional seven cultural resources are recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius of the project site. Of the 11 previously recorded resources outside of the project site, six are 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-18 historic age canals/aqueducts, one is a historic railroad segment, one is a historic road segment, one is a historic rock foundation, and one is an unknown resource due to missing record. Two (P- 07-002547 and P-07-000813) of the 12 cultural resources have been evaluated and were determined not eligible for NRHP and CRHR listing. The project is not expected to impact these historic age resources as they are located outside of the project site. Based on available information, it appears that no historical resources, as defined under CEQA, would be impacted by the project. However, due to the presence of cultural resources within the eastern portion of the project site, it is possible that additional historical resources would inadvertently be discovered during construction. This is a potentially significant impact. Impact 3.4-2. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Potentially Significant) The Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the project found that, although no previously recorded archaeological resources were found in the project site, four cultural resources were recorded within the Byron Airport parcel boundary, and an additional seven cultural resources were identified within the 0.5-mile search radius of the project site (Appendix E). Of these resources, one is a prehistoric artifact scatter, and another is an unknown resource due to missing record. The remaining resources are historic-age, and therefore are not considered archaeological. The NAHC SLF search did not identify cultural resources within the project site. Because the project would not impact areas outside of the project site, it would not cause a substantial adverse change to a known archaeological resource. However, the Cultural Resources Inventory Report suggests that there is moderate potential for inadvertent discovery of intact cultural deposits during earth moving activities (Appendix E). Because of this, the project would have a potentially significant impact on archaeological resources. Impact 3.4-3. The project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Potentially Significant) No previously recorded human remains were identified during the records search or Native American consultation. The pedestrian survey also found no indication of human remains. Nevertheless, it is possible that human remains would inadvertently be discovered during construction. Disturbance of previously unidentified human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Impact 3.4-4. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-19 in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by su bstantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Potentially Significant) Dudek contacted the NAHC to request a review of the SLF. The NAHC responded to Dudek’s request, stating that the SLF search was conducted with negative results. The County sent letters to all California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site requesting notification pursuant to AB 52. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.4, Wilton Rancheria requested consultation in 2017, but two attempts by the County to schedule consultation were not answered by the tribal contact. No information regarding the potential presence of a TCR was provided. During the public comment period for the Draft EIR, an additional consultation request letter was received by the County from the Wilton Rancheria on July 14, 2021. The County re-opened consultation. Although no tribal cultural resources were identified within the project site, minor modifications were made to the mitigation measures addressing accidental discovery of tribal cultural resources. As described previously, the CHRIS records search conducted for the proposed project identified one prehistoric resource located on the project site. The presence of this resource and the proximity of Byron Hot Springs to the project site indicates there is the potential to inadvertently encounter TCRs during construction. This is a potentially significant impact. 3.4.5 Mitigation Measures No historical or unique archaeological resources eligible for listing under the NRHP or CRHR have been identified on the project site. The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential for impacts on previously unidentified cultural resources or human remains. MM-CUL-1 Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Prior to commencement of any construction activities involving ground disturbance, Contra Costa County, a qualified archaeologist, representatives from interested Native American Tribes, and the construction contractor shall be invited to meet or otherwise discuss by conference call the project site’s archaeological sensitivity and determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. Given the present disturbed 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-20 condition in some locations surrounding existing airport facilities, areas of elevated potential for encountering unanticipated resources should be considered those within 500 feet of the historic-era corral and Brushy Creek, and no deeper than 4 feet below the present ground surface. An archaeological monitor and a monitor from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in these areas, after which the monitoring frequency shall be reduced to periodic spot-checks elsewhere. The monitoring strategy shall be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) based on the results of monitoring within areas of elevated archaeological sensitivity and as recommended by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed, work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted or directed to another location until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. If the resources are determined to be historical resources or unique (pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), the qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations prioritizing resource avoidance, or, where avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. MM-CUL-2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), in the event of the discovery of human remains, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the Contra Costa County (County) Coroner/Sheriff shall be immediately notified. The County Coroner/Sheriff shall determine if an investigation is necessary. If the remains are determined to be Native American: 1. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. 2. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. 3. The MLD shall have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the County for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. MM-CUL-3 Should a potential tribal cultural resource (TCR) be inadvertently encountered, construction activities within 100 feet of the TCR shall be halted and Contra 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-21 Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (Department) notified. The Department shall notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. Any affected tribe shall be provided a reasonable period of time to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCR. Depending on the nature of the potential resource and tribal recommendations, review by a qualified archaeologist may be required. Implementation of proposed recommendations shall be made based on the determination of the County that the approach is reasonable and feasible. All activities shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. MM-CUL-4 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The County shall require the contractor to provide a cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be developed in coordination with an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, as well as culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The County will invite Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to participate. The WEAP shall be conducted before any ground-disturbing construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP shall include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and shall outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP shall emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and shall discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-22 3.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of MM-CUL-1 would reduce Impact 3.4-1 and Impact 3.4-2 to less than significant. Implementation of MM-CUL-2 would reduce Impact 3.4-3 to less than significant. Implementation of MM-CUL-3 would reduce Impact 3.4-4 to less than significant. 3.4.7 Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources is southeastern Contra Costa County (the area which reasonably relates to the historical development of the community of Byron and exceeds the normal survey area for an archaeological records search). Subsurface prehistoric resources are expected to be confined to the territory of the Northern Valley Yokut, which includes the lower San Joaquin River watershed and its tributaries extending from Calaveras River in the north to approximately the large bend of the San Joaquin River eastward near Mendota. Historic resources and prehistoric sites have been recorded in the vicinity of Byron and could occur elsewhere in southeastern Contra Costa County. Development in the region could result in the damage or destruction of known and unknown archaeological and historical resources, as well as any existing undiscovered subsurface artifacts. The cumulative impact from past, present, and probable future projects, as well as the proposed project, is potentially significant. As described in Section 3.4.4, Impacts Analysis, the proposed project would not impact any known historical or archaeological resources. However, the inadvertent destruction of resources during site preparation and construction of the proposed project, if not properly treated, would result in the project incrementally contributing to a significant cumulative impact. Numerous laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and state levels, seek to protect cultural resources. These would apply to development within and outside Byron. In addition, the County General Plan provides local policies that safeguard cultural resources from unnecessary impacts (Contra Costa County 2005). These policies include identification and preservation of important archaeological and historical resources and balancing land uses with protection of cultural resources. Because the project site contains a moderate likelihood for the discovery of unknown subsurface historical or prehistoric resources, the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of cultural resources is potentially significant. However, with implementation of MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-3, described above, impacts would be less than significant. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-23 3.4.8 References Cited Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan – Open Space Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30919/Ch9-Open- Space-Element?bidId=. Davis, L.M. 1975. Dry Diggings on the North Fork: Personal Observations of Auburn, California in the Days of ’49. Published by Placer County Museum Foundation. Grunsky, F.R. 1989. Pathfinders of the Sacramento Region: They Were There Before Sutter. Sacramento County Historical Society. Haslam, G., S. Johnson, and R. Dawson. 1993. The Great Central Valley: California’s Heartland. University of California Press: Berkeley, California. Kano, R.M. 1990. Occurrence and abundance of predator fish in Clifton Court Forebay, California. Interagency Ecological Program. Kyle, D.E. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California. Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press. Office of Historic Preservation. 1995. “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. March 1995. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf. 3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.4-24 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-1 3.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS This section describes the existing geological setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The project site consists of the Byron Airport, approximately 1,307 acres south of Armstrong Road, and the approximately 12-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of 1,319 acres. The airport reference elevation is 76 feet above mean sea level. The project site is relatively flat land that contains two nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. The project site is located in southeastern Contra Costa County (County), approximately 2.5 miles south of the community of Byron, California. The airport is located on the western edge of the flat Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta agricultural lands, giving way to rolling hills and grasslands west of the airport. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the “V” formed by the two runways, with approximately 10 acres of aircraft storage area, 4 acres of apron, 125,000 square feet of hangars, and 2,400 square feet of office space. The majority of these facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. The project site historically supported agricultural fields from at least 1949 until 1966, when the project site was graded for roads and airport runways. On-site elevations range from 30 to 100 feet above mean sea level. Approximately 814 acres of airport property to the south and west of the airfield are set aside as a wildlife preserve. 3.5.1.1 Seismic Hazards Faults The project lies within a region of California that contains many active and potentially active faults and is considered an area of high seismic activity. Earthquakes are recorded by a seismographic network. Each seismic station in the network measures the movement of the ground at the site. The slip of one block of rock over another in an earthquake releases energy that makes the ground vibrate. That vibration pushes the adjoining piece of ground and causes it to vibrate, and thus the energy travels out from the earthquake in a wave. There are many different ways to measure different aspects of an earthquake. Magnitude is the most common measure of an earthquake's size. It is a measure of the size of the earthquake source and is the same number no matter where you are or what the shaking feels like. The Richter scale is an outdated method that is no longer used that measured the largest wiggle on the recording; other magnitude scales measure different parts of the earthquake (USGS 2018). 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-2 Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking. For this reason, earthquake intensities are also measured in terms of their observed effects at a given locality. The Modified Mercalli intensity scale is commonly used to measure earthquake damage due to ground shaking. The Modified Mercalli values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total) and intensities ranging from IV to X could cause moderate to significant structural damage. The intensity of an earthquake will vary over the region of a fault and generally decrease with distance from the epicenter of the earthquake. The California Geological Survey (CGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment calculates earthquake shaking hazards through historic seismic activity and fault slip rates. Shaking from faults is expressed as the peak ground acceleration (PGA) measured as a percentage (or fraction) of acceleration due to gravity from ground motion that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The project site is located in an area with a PGA of 40%–50% (0.40g) (DOC 2018). Regional Faults The San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults pose the greatest threats of significant damage in the Bay Area according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (USGS 2003a). These three faults exhibit strike-slip orientation and have experienced movement within the last 150 years. Other principal faults capable of producing significant ground shaking in the Bay Area include the Concord–Green Valley, Marsh Creek– Greenville, and Rodgers Creek faults. Table 3.5-1 provides historic earthquake and surface faulting, known micro seismic activity, and estimated maximum probable earthquake information for the regional faults. San Andreas Fault The San Andreas fault zone is a major structural feature that forms at the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates, extending from the Salton Sea in Southern California near the border with Mexico to north of Point Arena, where the fault trace extends out into the Pacific Ocean. The main trace of the San Andreas fault through the Bay Area trends northwest through the Santa Cruz Mountains and the eastern side of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the principal strike-slip boundary between the Pacific plate to the west and the North American plate to the east, the San Andreas is often a highly visible topographic feature, such as between Pacifica and San Mateo, where Crystal Springs Reservoir and San Andreas Lake clearly mark the rupture zone. Near San Francisco, the San Andreas fault trace is located immediately offshore near Daly City and continues northwest through the Pacific Ocean approximately 6 miles due west of the Golden Gate Bridge. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Andreas fault zone was the source of 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-3 the two major seismic events in recent history that affected the San Francisco Bay region. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was estimated at moment magnitude (Mw) 7.9 and resulted in approximately 290 miles of surface fault rupture, the longest of any known continental strike slip fault. Horizontal displacement along the fault approached 17 feet near the epicenter. The more recent 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with a magnitude of Mw 6.9, resulted in widespread damage throughout the Bay Area. Hayward Fault The Hayward fault zone is the southern extension of a fracture zone that includes the Rodgers Creek fault (north of San Pablo Bay), the Healdsburg fault (Sonoma County) and the Maacama fault (Mendocino County). The Hayward fault trends to the northwest within the East Bay, extending from San Pablo Bay in Richmond, 60 miles south to San Jose. The Hayward fault in San Jose converges with the Calaveras fault, a similar type of fault that extends north to Suisun Bay. The Hayward fault is designated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act as an active fault. Historically, the Hayward fault generated one sizable earthquake in the 1800s. In 1868, a Richter magnitude 7 earthquake on the southern segment of the Hayward fault ruptured the ground for a distance of about 30 miles. Recent analysis of geodetic data indicates surface deformation may have extended as far north as Berkeley. Lateral ground surface displacement during these events was at least 3 feet (USGS 2003a). A characteristic feature of the Hayward fault is its well-expressed and relatively consistent fault creep. Although large earthquakes on the Hayward fault have been rare since 1868, slow fault creep has continued to occur and has caused measurable offset. Fault creep on the East Bay segment of the Hayward fault is estimated at 9 millimeters per year (Peterson et al. 1996). However, a large earthquake could occur on the Hayward fault with an estimated Mw of about 7.1. The USGS Working Group includes the Hayward–Rodgers Creek fault systems in the list of those faults that have the highest probability of generating earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or greater in the Bay Area (USGS 2003b). Calaveras Fault The Calaveras fault is a major right-lateral strike-slip fault that has been active during the last 11,000 years. The Calaveras fault is located in the eastern San Francisco Bay region and generally trends along the eastern side of the East Bay Hills, west of San Ramon Valley, and extends into the western Diablo Range and eventually joins the San Andreas fault zone south of Hollister. The northern extent of the fault zone is somewhat conjectural and could be linked with the Concord fault. The fault separates rocks of different ages, with older rocks west of the fault and younger sedimentary rocks to the east. The location of the main, active fault trace is defined by youthful geomorphic features (linear scarps and troughs, right-laterally deflected drainage, sag ponds) and 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-4 local groundwater barriers. The Calaveras fault is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone (see discussion on this zone designation below). There is a distinct change in slip rate and fault behavior north and south of the vicinity of Calaveras Reservoir. North of Calaveras Reservoir, the fault is characterized by a relatively low slip rate of 5–6 millimeters per year and sparse seismicity. South of Calaveras Reservoir, the fault zone is characterized by a higher rate of surface fault creep that has been evidenced in historic times. The Calaveras fault has been the source of numerous moderate magnitude earthquakes and the probability of a large earthquake (greater than magnitude 6.7) is much lower than on the San Andreas or Hayward faults (USGS 2003b). However, this fault is considered capable of generating earthquakes with upper bound magnitudes ranging from Mw 6.6 to Mw 6.8. Concord–Green Valley Fault The Concord–Green Valley fault extends from Walnut Creek north to Wooden Valley (east of Napa Valley). Historical record indicates that no large earthquakes have occurred on the Concord or Green Valley faults (USGS 2003a). However, a moderate earthquake of magnitude 5.4 occurred on the Concord fault segment in 1955. The Concord and Green Valley faults exhibit active fault creep and are considered to have a small (4%) probability of causing a significant (greater than magnitude 6.7) earthquake according to the USGS. Greenville Fault The Greenville fault, also known as the Marsh Creek–Greenville fault, extends along the base of the Altamont Hills, which form the eastern margin of the Livermore Valley. The fault is recognized as a major structural feature and has demonstrated activity in the last 11,000 years. A magnitude 5.6 earthquake on the Greenville fault in 1980 produced a small amount of surface rupture (approximately 3 centimeters) on the fault near Vasco Road. Table 3.5-1 Contra Costa County Inventory of Seismic Faults Fault Name Historic Damaging Earthquake Historic Surface Faulting Known Micro Seismic Activity Estimated Maximum Probable Earthquake San Andreas 1838, 1906 Creep and Surface Rupture Yes 8.25 Hayward 1836, 1869 Creep and Surface Rupture Yes 6.5 Calaveras 1861 Surface Rupture None in Contra Costa County 6.5 Concord – Green Valley 1955 Creep Yes 5.75 Greenville 1980 Surface Rupture Yes 5.75 Source: Contra Costa County 2005a. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-5 Ground Shaking Ground shaking may affect areas hundreds of miles distant from the earthquake’s epicenter. Historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking and damage in the San Francisco Bay Area, the most recent being the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake in October 1989. The epicenter was more than 60 miles south of the project area, but this earthquake nevertheless caused strong ground shaking for about 20 seconds and resulted in varying degrees of structural damage throughout the Bay Area. The 1906 San Franci sco earthquake, with an estimated Mw of 7.9, produced moderate shaking intensities in the project area. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with an Mw of 6.9, produced light shaking intensities in the project area (ABAG 2018). The common way to describe ground motion during an earthquake is with the motion parameters of acceleration and velocity in addition to the duration of the shaking. A common measure of ground motion is the PGA. The PGA for a given component of motion is the largest value of horizontal acceleration obtained from a seismograph. The potential hazards related to ground shaking are discussed further in Section 3.5.4, Impacts Analysis. Liquefaction and Landslide Liquefaction is a specialized form of ground failure caused by earthquake ground motion. It is a quicksand condition occurring in water-saturated, unconsolidated, relatively clay-free sands and silts caused by hydraulic pressure (from ground motion) forcing apart soil particles and forcing them into quicksand-like liquid suspension. In the process, normally firm, but wet, ground materials take on the characteristics of liquids. Liquefaction is a transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated soil temporarily loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water pressure, especially during earthquake-induced cyclic loading. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Four kinds of ground failure commonly result from liquefaction: lateral spread, flow failure, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction and associated failures could damage foundations, roads, underground cables, and pipelines and disrupt utility service. In addition, liquefaction can occur in unconsolidated or artificial fill sediments and other reclaimed areas along the margin of San Francisco Bay. Geologically young and water-saturated sandy sediments, such as those found in the extensive shoreline areas in western and northeastern county locations and the delta, are highly susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the County General Plan Safety Element, the project site has an estimated liquefaction potential of moderate to low (Contra Costa County 2005a). Catastrophic ground failures may result from liquefaction, which pose a major threat to the safety of engineered structures. Major landslides, settling and tilting of buildings on level ground, and failure of water retaining structures have all been observed as a result of this type of ground failure. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-6 It should be emphasized that great earthquakes anywhere in the Bay Area are capable of triggering liquefaction in the County. Landslides are the downslope movement of geologic materials. Typically, such movement occurs as block glide (in which slope failure occurs along a planar surface and the mass of materials slides as a single block) or as a slump (in which slope failure occurs along single or multiple surfaces and the mass of materials slides in a rotational motion). Areas that are subject to slides and slippages from other natural causes may be very hazardous under earthquake conditions. Therefore, earthquake effects will be more extensive if a major earthquake occurs during the rainy season when ground conditions are favorable to landslides and ground slippage. According to the County General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in an area with landslide deposits, reclaimed area, or filled reclaimed area, nor is the site in an area in over 26% slope (Contra Costa County 2005a). The potential hazards related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed further in Section 3.5.4. 3.5.1.2 Site Geology Regional Geology The project site lies within the geologically complex region of California referred to as the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges province lies between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley and stretches from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez Mountains near Santa Barbara. Much of the Coast Ranges province is composed of marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks that form northwest-trending mountain ridges and valleys, running roughly parallel to the San Andreas fault zone. These older consolidated rocks are characteristically exposed in the mountains but are buried beneath younger, unconsolidated alluvial fan and fluvial sediments in the valleys and lowlands. In coastal and bay margins, these younger sediments commonly interfinger with a variety of marine deposits (e.g., bay mud). The geology of the County is dominated by several northwest trending fault systems which divide the County into large blocks of rock. Site Geology The project site is underlain by Pliocene Bedrock and Older (Pleistocene) Alluvium, which is characterized by consolidated and unconsolidated sediments and possesses potential for expansive clays, hillside earthflows, and unstable cut slopes. Soils of the project site are classified under the lowland soils classification, which means these soils are slowly to very slowly permeable, highly expansive, and corrosive, with slight erosion hazards (Contra Costa County 2005a). The project site contains soils within the C and D hydrologic soil groups. Hydrologic soil group C is typically comprised of 20%–40% clay and less than 50% sand, and group D soils have typically greater than 40% clay, less than 50% sand, and clayey textures. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-7 Soil types located within the project site include the following (USDA 1977): • Altamont clay 9%–15% slopes (AbD): The Altamont series consists of well-drained soils underlain by shale and soft, fine-grained sandstone. Permeability is slow, and the available water capacity is 6.5–10 inches. Roots can penetrate to a depth of 40–60 inches. This soil is well drained, with a moderate to low erosion potential. Runoff is slow to medium where the soil is tilled and exposed. • Altamont clay 15%–30% slopes (AbE): This soil is on rolling hills, along narrow drainageways, and in depressions. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate where the soil is bare. • Fontana-Altamont complex (Fd): The Fontana series consists of well-drained soils underlain by calcareous, fine-grained sandstone. These soils are on uplands. Permeability is moderately slow, and the available water capacity is 3.5–6.5 inches. Roots can penetrate to a depth of 20–36 inches. This complex is on foothills in the eastern uplands of the County. It consists of about 55% Fontana silty clay loam and 30% Altamont clay. Runoff is slow to medium where the soils are tilled and exposed, and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. • Linne clay loam, 5%–15% slopes (LbD): The Linne series consists of well-drained soils underlain by calcareous, interbedded shale and soft sandstone. Permeability is moderately slow, and the available water capacity is 4–8 inches. Roots can penetrate to a depth of 20–40 inches. This gently rolling to rolling soil is on foothills in the uplands. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate where the soil is tilled and exposed. • Linne clay loam, 15%–30% slopes (LbE): This soil is moderately steep with a runoff classification of medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate where the soil is bare. • Rincon clay loam 2%–9% slopes (RbC): The Rincon series consists of well-drained soils, formed in alluvial valley fill from sedimentary rock. This gently sloping and moderately sloping soil is on benches. These soils have a surface layer of dark reddish- brown, neutral sandy loam, and a subsoil or reddish-brown, neutral clay loam. Runoff is medium and the hazard of erosion is slight where the soil is tilled and exposed. Permeability is show and the available water capacity is 9–10 inches. Roots can penetrate to a depth of more than 60 inches. • San Ysidro loam 0%–5% slopes (Sc): The San Ysidro series consists of moderately well drained soils. Permeability is very slow, and the available water capacity is 3.5–5 inches. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The depth to which roots can penetrate is limited to 10–20 inches by the clay subsoil. • Solana loam (Sh): The Solana series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock. Slopes are 0%–2%. Runoff is slow and the hazard of 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-8 erosion is slight. Permeability is very slow, and the available water capacity is 4–6 inches. Roots of salt-tolerant plants can penetrate to a depth of 36–48 inches. • Solana loam, strongly alkali (Sk): This soil is in old valley fill near rims of basins. Slopes are 0%–2%. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. 3.5.1.3 Geologic Hazards Expansive or Unstable Soils Expansive soils are clay- or adobe-based soils that absorb large quantities of water and, as a result, expand. This expansion can cause building slabs to crack and buckle. Structural damage may occur over a long period of time, usually as the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. The Quaternary Alluvium underlying the project site possesses the potential for expansive clays (Contra Costa County 2005a). Soil Erosion Erosion is the wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering, mass wasting, and the action of waves, wind, and underground water. Excessive soil erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations and roadways. At the project site, areas that are most susceptible to erosion are any disturbed soils located on steeper terrain. Typically, the soil erosion potential is reduced once the soil is graded and vegetated, or covered with concrete, structures, asphalt, or slope protection. When erosion occurs, topsoil is lost, resulting in reduced crop productivity and sedimentation problems downstream. In turn, sedimentation can fill waterways, diminish water quality, and damage sensitive habitats. Erosion occurs when high rainfall, lack of cover, fragile soils, and steep slopes combine. Urbanization, development activities, recreation, agricultural, and logging practices increase erosion (Contra Costa County 2005a). According to the soil survey of the County, the project site is underlain by soils characterized by well-drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils. Runoff is of the underlying soils are characterized as, medium, slow to medium, and slow, and the soil’s potential for erosion is slight, slight to moderate, moderate, and moderate to low (USDA 1977). 3.5.1.4 Paleontological Resources There are nearly 15,000 Middle Miocene to Late Pleistocene vertebrate records from the County in the University of California Museum of Paleontology specimens database. The University of California Museum of Paleontology localities database did not indicate any recorded sites within the vicinity of the project site (UCMP 2018). The project site is underlain by Late Cretaceous bedrock and Older (Pleistocene) Alluvium, which is characterized by consolidated and 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-9 unconsolidated sediments. Both Alluvial fan deposits of Pleistocene age and Late Cretaceous age bedrock are considered to have a high potential to yield paleontological resources. Numerous stratigraphically important vertebrate fossils have been found within California’s Pleistocene nonmarine strata, including the assemblages that define both the Rancholabrean and Irvingtonian North American Land Mammal Ages, which are used as a reference by paleontologists and stratigraphers across the country. Due to this, continental Pleistocene-age deposits are almost universally considered to be of high sensitivity for paleontological resources within California (Caltrans 2010). Late Cretaceous marine reptiles have also been discovered from the Great Valley, and the corresponding bedrock is considered to have a high potential to yield significant paleontological resources. 3.5.1.5 Mineral Resources The CGS, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology, has classified lands within the San Francisco Bay Region into mineral resource zones (MRZs). The classification of MRZs is based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. The project site is mapped by the CGS as not containing MRZs. The County General Plan Conservation Element identifies the significant mineral resources areas that are found within the County. The project site is not located within one of these mineral resource areas (Contra Costa County 2005b). 3.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations Excavation and trenching are among the most hazardous construction operations. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trenching Standard, Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926.650, covers requirements for excavation and trenching operations. OSHA requires that all excavations in which employees could potentially be exposed to cave-ins be protected by sloping or benching the sides of the excavation, supporting the sides of the excavation, or placing a shield between the side of the excavation and the work area. In California, California OSHA has responsibility for implementing federal rules relevant to worker safety, including slope protection during construction excavations. California OSHA’s requirements are more restrictive and protective than federal OSHA standards. U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program In fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, the USGS created the Landslide Hazards Program in the mid-1970s. According to the USGS, the primary objective of the National 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-10 Landslide Hazards Program is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The federal government takes the lead role in funding and conducting this research, whereas the reduction of losses due to geologic hazards is primarily a state and local responsibility. State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. In accordance with this act, the State Geologist established regulatory zones, called “earthquake fault zones,” around the surface traces of active faults, and published maps showing these zones. Earthquake fault zones are designated by the CGS and are delineated along traces of faults where mapping demonstrates surface fault rupture has occurred within the past 11,000 years. Construction within these zones cannot be permitted until a geologic exploration has been conducted to prove that a building planned for human occupancy would not be constructed across an active fault. These types of site evaluations address the precise location and recency of rupture along traces of the faults, and are typically based on observations made in trenches excavated across fault traces. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690 et seq.) directs the CGS to protect the public from earthquake-induced liquefaction and landslide hazards (these hazards are distinct from fault surface rupture hazard regulated by the Alquist-Priolo Act). This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones (i.e., zones of required investigation). Before a development permit may be granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical exploration of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into project design. Evaluation and mitigation of potential risks from seismic hazards within zones of required investigation must be conducted in accordance with the CGS Special Publication 117A, adopted March 13, 1997, by the State Mining and Geology Board (as updated in 2008). As of 2012, Seismic Hazard Zone Maps have been prepared for portions of populated areas of Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area; however, no seismic hazard zones have yet been delineated for the project site. As a result, the provisions of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act would not apply to the proposed project. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-11 California Building Code The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under state law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to est ablish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC is based on the International Building Code published by the International Code Conference. The CBC contains California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Standards 7-05. American Society of Civil Engineers 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads and other loads (such as wind loads) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are afforded consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) includes as one of the questions to be answered in the Environmental Checklist (Appendix G, Section V, Part c) the following: “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5, specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage to or removal of paleontological resources. Local Contra Costa County General Plan The County General Plan Safety Element (Safety Element) contains goals and policies related to geology, soils, and seismicity that apply to development projects throughout the unincorporated County, including project. These goals and policies include the following (Contra Costa County 2005a): Goal 10-B To reduce to a practical minimum injuries and health risks resulting from the effects of earthquake ground shaking on structures, facilities, and utilities. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-12 Goal 10-C To protect persons and property from the life-threatening, structurally and financially disastrous effects of ground rupture and fault creep on active faults, and to reduce structural distress caused by soil and rock weakness due to geologic faults. Policy 10-2 Significant land use decisions (General Plan amendment, rezoning, etc.) shall be based on a thorough evaluation of geologic-seismic and soils conditions and risk. Liquefaction The Safety Element contains a map, Estimated Liquefaction Potential, that divides the County into three categories: “generally high,” “generally moderate to low,” and “generally low” (Contra Costa County 2005a). This map is used as screening criteria by the County during the processing of land development applications. The County requires rigorous evaluation of liquefaction potential in areas of high potential, and less comprehensive investigations are demanded in areas falling within the moderate or low category. The classification of generally high liquefaction potential does not guarantee the presence of liquefiable sands on a parcel. The map attempts to be conservative on the side of safety, and where geologically recent alluvial and estuarine deposits are shown on soil maps of the County, the map depicts such properties within the generally high category. Site specific investigations are needed to determine if liquefiable sands are present and to provide stabilization measures where liquefiable sands are confirmed. The Safety Element includes a number of policies indicating that at-risk areas require evaluation of liquefaction potential and effective mitigation of the hazard posed to new development (Contra Costa County 2005a). Where improvements are proposed in even the generally moderate to low category, investigation of the hazard is routinely required. Where liquefiable sands are confirmed to be present, effective measures to avoid/control damage are a prerequisite to obtaining project approvals. Because the windswept ridge crests within the project site are in the generally low category, quantitative evaluation of liquefaction potential is not required. Ground Failure and Landslides In 1975, the USGS issued photo-interpretation maps of landslides and other surficial deposits of the County (scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet). That mapping is presented on pages 10–24 of the Safety Element (Contra Costa County 2005a). According to the map, there are landslides within the project site. It should be recognized that the USGS slides are mapped solely on the basis of photointerpretation, without the benefit of a site visit or any subsurface data. The landslides are not classified on the basis of the activity status (i.e., active or dormant), depth of slide plane (shallow or deep seated), or type of landslide deposit. Nevertheless, the map fulfills its function, which is to red flag sites 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-13 that may be at risk of landslide damage, where detailed geologic and geotechnical investigations are required to evaluate risks and develop measures to reduce risks to a practical minimum. The Safety Element includes a number of policies that require evaluation of geologic hazards for land development projects proposed in areas of potential hazards. The Safety Element states that geologic conditions should be a primary determinant of land use (Contra Costa County 2005a). 3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to geology and soils are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to geology, soils, and minerals would occur if the project would: 1. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by th e State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking. c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. 6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 7. 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? 8. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-14 3.5.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.5-1. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) (Less than Significant) The proposed project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated through the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no mapped active faults are known to pass through the immediate project region. Therefore, the risk of ground rupture at the site is very low. The nearest Alquist-Priolo zone encompasses traces of the Greenville fault. The Greenville fault is mapped approximately 8 miles southwest of the proposed project site; the Concord and Calaveras faults pass approximately 21–24 miles west and northwest of the project site, respectively. These faults are considered capable of generating an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 7.0. Additionally, a seismically active blind thrust belt underlies the Coast Range–Great Valley geomorphic boundary, and passes through the eastern portion of the County. The precise location of the Great Valley fault system and associated blind-thrust faults are not well known because the earthquakes on this fault system do not result in fault rupture at the ground surface. Earthquakes associated with the Great Valley fault system include the 1983 Coalinga earthquake and 1985 Kettleman Hills earthquake, of magnitudes 6.7 and 6.1, respectively. Additionally, two greater than 6.0 magnitude earthquakes are believed to have occurred on the fault system in 1892 near Winters and Dixon. The active faults may produce a range of ground shaking intensities at the project site which creates a risk of structural damage. However, County building inspectors would review the proposed project plans to ensure compliance with the existing and regularly amended seismic design provisions of the 2016 CBC, in order to reduce potential impacts from seismic ground shaking, including liquefaction. Considering there are no mapped active faults on the project site, the potential for surface fault rupture to affect the project and pose a hazard to nearby structures or people would be minimal. Therefore, the potential impact of the project to expose persons or structures to risk of ground rupture along a fault line is less than significant. b) strong seismic ground shaking; (Less than Significant) As stated in Section 3.5.1, Existing Conditions, the project site is underlain by Pliocene Bedrock and Older (Pleistocene) Alluvium, which according to the Safety Element, is considered to possess “moderately low damage susceptibility” (Contra Costa County 2005a). The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-15 The 2016 CBC requires uses of seismic parameters that allow structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profiles types and proximity to known active faults. Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally acceptable limits, and thus people or structures would not be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. c) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (Less than Significant) Liquefaction potential is discussed in the Safety Element. Areas with deep water tables and those underlain by well-consolidated ground materials typically have low or moderate liquefaction potentials. The Safety Element identifies the project site as “generally moderate to low” (Figure 10-5 in Contra Costa County 2005a). As discussed under Section 3.5.1, geologically young and water-saturated sandy sediments, such as those found in the extensive shoreline areas in western and northeastern County locations and the delta, are highly susceptible to liquefaction. The project site is underlain by primarily quaternary alluvium that is sometimes considered to be expansive. The County provides liquefaction potential based on geologic conditions, and a review of soils data from a number of sources (Contra Costa County 2005a). As previously discussed, the project is required to comply with the CBC, which outlines specific design, engineering, and development standards for structures proposed in areas with unstable soils. Additionally, all new buildings and renovations would be subject to review and plan approval by the County Conservation and Development Department, prior to construction. The County building inspectors would also review project plans to ensure compliance with the seismic design provisions of the CBC. Compliance with the current regulations would ensure that all structures are designed and built to current standards to minimize impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) landslides. (Less than Significant) Areas at risk from landslides include areas on or close to steep hills and steep road cuts or excavations, or areas where existing landslides have occurred. The existing topography of the site is relatively level, as the site is used for aircraft runways, which require little to no slope. The overall topography of the project site has a slight downward trend to the west in the northern portion of the site and a downward trend to the east in the southern portion of the site. The County does not recognize the project site to have landslide deposits, reclaimed areas, or filled reclaimed areas, nor to have slope areas over 26% (Contra Costa County 2005a). The project site is underlain by the Pliocene Bedrock and Older (Pleistocene) Alluvium, which is not considered prone to slope failure. As such, the project site is not in an area susceptible to landslides. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-16 As previously discussed, the project is required to comply with the CBC, which outlines specific design, engineering, and development standards for structures proposed in areas with unstable soils. Additionally, all new buildings and renovations would be subject to review and plan approval by the County Conservation and Development Department, prior to construction. The County building inspectors would also review project plans to ensure compliance with the seismic design provisions of the CBC. Compliance with the current regulations would ensure that all structures are designed and built to current standards to minimize impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.5-2. The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant) As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, Site Geology, the project site is underlain by soils that are characterized as well-drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils (USDA 1977). Runoff potential of the underlying soils are characterized as, medium, slow to medium, and slow, and the soil’s potential for erosion is slight, slight to moderate, moderate, and moderate to low (USDA 1977). Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project, including vegetation removal, excavations, and grading, would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential to cause soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum to carry more debris) and the narrowing of runoff channels (which increases the velocity of water). During demolition, new construction, or renovation activities, the County would be required to implement erosion control measures stipulated in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge requirements (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for details regarding Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans). Therefore, during future demolition, new construction, and renovation activities, erosion induced stormwater discharges would be reduced to levels that are less than significant. Upon completion of project construction, structures, roadways, and landscaping or revegetated areas would eventually cover any soils exposed during construction, thus minimizing the potential for erosion -induced siltation of adjacent waterways. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.5-3. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. (Less than Significant) Landslides and other ground failures occur during earthquakes when triggered by the strain induced in soil and rock by the ground-shaking vibrations, and during non-earthquake conditions 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-17 most frequently during the rainy season. Slopes may suffer landslides, slumping, soil slips, and rockslides. As previously discussed, the proposed project site is underlain by Pliocene Bedrock and Older (Pleistocene) Alluvium, which possess the potential for expansive clays, hillside earthflows and unstable cut slopes that range from soft sandstone and silty clay loam to firm. Soils of this type, even if saturated, are too cohesive to liquefy during earthquake shaking. Ground failure, such as lateral spreading and subsidence, occurs when stresses in the ground exceed the resistance of earth materials to deformation or rupture. This instability can be triggered by earthquake shaking or human-made changes, such as grading a steep slope or unstable soils. Considering the soil types do not possess high liquefaction susceptibility and the relatively low slope of the site, ground failure such as lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction is not deemed to be a hazard for the proposed project site. The implication of the preliminary analysis is that the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. In accordance with the County General Plan, further more detailed future investigations is required for project development. The geotechnical study would be required to comply with applicable building codes and engineering standards, including any applicable amendments to the CBC contained in the County’s Municipal Code. The project structures would be designed to either avoid or accommodate without issues small-scale instabilities such as shrink/swell behavior and load-induced and long-term soil settlement, among other issues. Impact 3.5-4. The project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Potentially Significant) The Quaternary Alluvium underlying the project site possesses the potential for expansive clays (Contra Costa County 2005a). Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. This impact would be potentially significant. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by placing building slabs on select, granular fill and by use of rigid mat or post- tensioned slabs. Therefore, MM-GEO-1 would require the preparation and submittal of a geotechnical study, which would include more detailed information based on final designs that identify soil conditions, recommend foundation designs, and provide recommendation to mitigate for expansive soils. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-18 Impact 3.5-5. The project may have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Potentially Significant) The project site is currently serviced by a 3,000-gallon septic tank and lift station that pumps to a leach field located southwest of the aircraft apron. Under proposed project conditions, one or a combination of the following scenarios may occur: the existing septic tank would be expanded to support the additional development areas on the project site, the existing septic system would be converted to a package wastewater treatment plant, and/or the project site would connect to the Byron Sanitary District system. Please refer to Chapter 3.14, Utilities, for additional information on alternatives for wastewater treatment. As previously discussed under Impact 3.5-4, the underlying soils possesses expansive potential, which would be potentially significant. However, the project would not generally represent a significant hazard to life or safety, and hazards would be addressed through application of modern building codes and generally accepted professional engineering geologic principles and practice. As stated in MM-GEO-1, prior to the approval of any building or improvement plans, a geotechnical study would be prepared by a registered civil or geotechnical engineer, and submitted for review and approval to the County. The geotechnical study would include more detailed information based on final designs that identify soil conditions, recommend foundation designs, and provide recommendation to mitigate for expansive soils. The geotechnical study would be required to comply with applicable building codes and engineering standards, including any applicable amendments to the CBC contained in the County’s municipal code. The project structures would be designed to either avoid or accommodate without issues small-scale instabilities such as shrink/swell behavior and load-induced and long-term soil settlement, among other issues. Impact 3.5-6. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Potentially Significant) No unique geologic features have been identified through investigation of the geology and soils (see Section 3.5.1). Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.5.1.4, Paleontological Resources, no paleontological records or sites have been identified on the project site. The project site contains sedimentary units with moderate to high paleontological resources sensitivity; resources in previously undisturbed areas may be found as shallow as 5 to 10 feet. It is possible that paleontological resources would inadvertently be discovered during construction, which would be potentially significant. In the event that scientifically important paleontological are unearthed during grading activities, a paleontologist should be retained to evaluate the discovery and make a significance determination, and if significant, make recommendations for conservation, in accordance with MM GEO-2. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-19 Impact 3.5-7. 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. (No Impact) As discussed in Section 3.5.1.4, the project site is mapped by the CGS as not containing MRZs. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts related to known mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur. Impact 3.5-8. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. (No Impact) As discussed in Section 3.5.1.4, the project site is not located within a County-designated mineral resource area. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts related to locally important mineral resources. No impact would occur. 3.5.5 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to levels below significance. MM-GEO-1 Prior to the approval of any building or improvement plans, a geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil or geotechnical engineer and submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development by the applicant for that project. The report shall address the specific approach to development. This report shall: (A) provide specific criteria and standards for identifying suitable imported fill materials; (B) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for the import of fill materials; (C) if import fills may be expansive or corrosive, provisions shall be made for testing of soils on rough-graded pads and providing design measures to avoid/control damage to foundations and buried utilities; (D) provide criteria for placement of engineered fill; (E) provide further evaluation of seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation; (F) provide detailed evaluation of the compressibility of the alluvial soils and forecast the anticipated amount of total settlement and timing of settlement to occur or placing a surcharge on the site to speed settlement; (G) provide California Building Code seismic parameters; and (H) outline recommendations for geotechnical observation and testing services during site preparation-, grading-and foundation-related work. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-20 MM-GEO-2 If paleontological resources (i.e., fossil bones, teeth, shells, plants, or trace fossils) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large paleontological resources. Depending upon the significance of the find, the qualified paleontologist may simply remove and record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, additional work, such as data recovery and extended specimen removal, may be warranted. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program for the project, which outlines where paleontological monitoring is required based on the location of the discovery, geotechnical reports, and construction plans. The qualified paleontologist shall also be required to curate specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a final written report to the repository and lead agency for review. 3.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of MM-GEO-1, which requires the preparation and approval of a geotechnical report, would reduce Impact 3.5-4 and Impact 3.5-5 to less than significant. Implementation of MM-GEO-2 would reduce Impact 3.5-6 to less than significant. 3.5.7 Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed project would not affect any known seismic or other geological hazards. There may be site-specific occurrences of soil that is expansive or prone to liquefaction, but the impact of these potential soil conditions would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of MM-GEO-1. There are no projects anticipated under the County General Plan that would combine or interact with the proposed project to create a cumulative impact. Similarly, as there are no known paleontological resources in or near the project site, the potential for cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3.5.8 References Cited ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2018. Resilience Program. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-21 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2010. Interstate 205/Lammers Road Interchange Project Paleontological Identification Report. City of Tracy. San Joaquin County, California. 10-SJ-205-KP3.8/R8.5 (PM2.6/R5.1) EA0H910K. July 2010. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan Safety Element. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan Conservation Element. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30918/ Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. DOC (Department of Conservation). 2018. San Jose Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Map. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/PSHA/PSHA-map-index/San_Jose.aspx. Peterson, M.D., W.A. Bryant, and C.H. Cramer. 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California. California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report issued jointly with U.S. Geological Survey, CDMG 96-08 and USGS 96-706. UCMP (University of California Museum of Paleontology). 2018. Searchable database. http://ucmparchives.berkeley.edu/archon/index.php. USDA (U.S . Department of Agriculture). 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County . https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRI PTS/california/CA013/0/ contracosta.pdf. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003a. Summary of Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2003-–2032. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG02). http://quake.usgs.gov/research/seismology/wg02/. USGS. 2003b. “Is a Powerful Quake Likely to Strike in the Next 30 Years?” USGS Fact Sheet 039-03. Working Group 02. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/old.2003/fs039-03/. USGS. 2018. “How are earthquakes recorded? How are earthquakes measured? How is the magnitude of an earthquake determined?” https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-are- earthquakes-recorded-how-are-earthquakes-measured-how-magnitude-earthquake- determined?qt-news_science_products=3#qt-news_science_products. 3.5 – GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.5-22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-1 3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section describes the existing setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. 3.6.1 Existing Conditions 3.6.1.1 Climate Change Overview Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2017). The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: Short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth, the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation, and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales and that, in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations. Recent climate changes, in particular the warming observed over the past century, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming since the mid-twentieth century and are the most significant driver of observed climate change (IPCC 2013; EPA 2017). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate system (IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC 2013). 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-2 Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system, which is discussed further in Section 3.6.3, Thresholds of Significance and Methodology, below. 3.6.1.2 Greenhouse Gases A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (see also 14 CCR 15364.5).1 Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the most common GHGs and their sources.2 Carbon Dioxide CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a byproduct of human activities and is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO2 include respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out-gassing; and decomposition of dead organic matter. Human activities that generate CO2 include the combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and changes in land use. Methane CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. CH4 is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. 1 Climate forcing substances include GHGs and other substances such as black carbon and aerosols. This discussion focuses on the seven GHGs identified in the California Health and Safety Code 38505 as impacts associated with other climate forcing substances are not evaluated herein. 2 The descriptions of GHGs are summarized from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (IPCC 1995), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), California Air Resources Board’s Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories (2018a), and EPA’s Climate Change (2017). 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-3 Nitrous Oxide N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N2O. Sources of N2O include soil cultivation practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers; manure management; industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants); vehicle emissions; and using N2O as a propellant (such as in rockets, racecars, and aerosol sprays). Fluorinated Gases Fluorinated gases are powerful synthetic GHGs emitted from many industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone (O3) depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases include the following: • Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to O3 depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as byproducts of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. • Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the O3 depleting substances. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years. • Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. • Nitrogen Trifluoride: Nitrogen trifluoride is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors and flat panel displays. Chlorofluorocarbons CFCs are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and aerosol propellants. CFCs are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), and the production of CFCs was prohibited in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-4 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons HCFCs are a large group of compounds, whose structure is very close to that of CFCs—containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms—but including one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs, HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs were also used in place of CFCs for some applications; however, their use in general is being phased out. Black Carbon Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and forest fires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short-lived substance that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify the global warming potential (GWP). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions are a major source of black carbon and are toxic air contaminants that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health. In relation to declining DPM as a result of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, and burning activities, CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California have reduced by 70% between 1990 and 2010, with 95% control expected by 2020 (CARB 2014). Water Vapor The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life. Ozone Tropospheric O3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from both natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen, plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric O3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-5 Aerosols Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light. 3.6.1.3 Global Warming Potential Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2017). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the GWP concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2, assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). 3.6.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Climate Change Conditions Global Inventory Anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide in 2016 (the most recent year for which data is available) totaled approximately 49,300 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e, excluding land use change and forestry (PBL 2017). Six countries—China, the United States, the Russian Federation, India, Japan, and Brazil—and the European community accounted for approximately 65% of the total global emissions, or approximately 32,255 MMT CO2e (PBL 2017). Table 3.6-1 presents the top GHG-emissions-producing countries. Table 3.6-1 Six Top Greenhouse Gas Producer Countries and the European Union Emitting Countries (listed in order of emissions) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MMT CO2e) China 13,010 United States 6,430 European Union 4,430 India 3,650 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-6 Table 3.6-1 Six Top Greenhouse Gas Producer Countries and the European Union Emitting Countries (listed in order of emissions) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MMT CO2e) Russian Federation 2,220 Japan 1,400 Brazil 1,115 Total 32,255 Source: PBL 2017. Note: MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. National and State Inventories Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2016 (EPA 2018), total United States GHG emissions were approximately 6,511.3 MMT CO2e in 2016. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, which represented approximately 81.6% of total GHG emissions (5,310.9 MMT CO2e). The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil-fuel combustion, which accounted for approximately 93.5% of CO2 emissions in 2016 (4,966.0 MMT CO2e). Relative to 1990, gross United States GHG emissions in 2016 are higher by 2.4%; down from a high of 15.7% above 1990 levels in 2007. GHG emissions decreased from 2015 to 2016 by 1.9% (126.8 MMT CO2e) and overall, net emissions in 2016 were 11.1% below 2005 levels (EPA 2018). According to California’s 2000–2016 GHG emissions inventory (2018 edition), California emitted 429.4 MMT CO2e in 2016, including emissions resulting from out-of-state electrical generation (CARB 2018b). The sources of GHG emissions in California include transportation, industrial uses, electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources, commercial and residential uses, agriculture, high GWP substances, and recycling and waste. The California GHG emission source categories (as defined in CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan) and their relative contributions in 2016 are presented in Table 3.6-2. Table 3.6-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California Source Category Annual GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e) Percent of Totala Transportation 169.38 39% Industrial Usesb 89.61 21% Electricity Generationc 68.58 16% Residential and Commercial Uses 39.36 9% Agriculture 33.84 8% High GWP Substances 19.78 5% Recycling and Waste 8.81 2% Totals 429.40 100% Source: CARB 2018b. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-7 Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; GWP = global warming potential. Emissions reflect 2016 California GHG inventory. a Percentage of total has been rounded and total may not sum due to rounding. b The Aliso Canyon natural gas leak event released 1.96 MMT CO2e of unanticipated emissions in 2015 and 0.53 MMT CO2e in 2016. These leak emissions will be fully mitigated according to legal settlement and are tracked separately from routine inventory emissions. c Includes emissions associated with imported electricity, which account for 26.28 MMT CO2e. Between 2000 and 2016, per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a peak of 14.0 MT per person in 2001 to 10.8 MT per person in 2016, representing a 23% decrease. In addition, total GHG emissions in 2016 were approximately 12 MMT CO2e less than 2015 emissions. The declining trend in GHG emissions, coupled with programs that will continue to provide additional GHG reductions going forward, demonstrates that California will continue to reduce emissions below the 2020 target of 431 MT CO2e (CARB 2018b). Contra Costa County Inventory Total GHG emissions for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County (County) in 2005 and 2013 were estimated at approximately 1,403,610 MT CO2e and 1,392,450 MT CO2e, respectively. The 2013 inventory represents the most recent year of data, with the transportation sector as the primary contributor, generating 47% of GHG emissions. Other sources (with percentage of total GHG emissions) include residential energy (19%), landfills (14%), nonresidential energy (9%), off-road equipment (5%), agriculture (4%), solid waste (2%), water and wastewater (1%), and Bay Area Rapid Transit (less than 1%) (Contra Costa County 2015). Potential Effects of Climate Change Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report (IPCC 2014) indicated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Signs that global climate change has occurred include warming of the atmosphere and ocean, diminished amounts of snow and ice, and rising sea levels (IPCC 2014). In California, climate change impacts have the potential to affect sea level rise, agriculture, snowpack and water supply, forestry, wildfire risk, public health, and electricity demand and supply (CCCC 2006). The primary effect of global climate change has been a 0.2°C rise in average global tropospheric temperature per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Scientific modeling predicts that continued emissions of GHGs at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the twenty- first century than were observed during the twentieth century. A warming of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade is projected, and there are identifiable signs that global warming could be taking place. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-8 Although climate change is driven by global atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts are felt locally. A scientific consensus confirms that climate change is already affecting California. The average temperatures in California have increased, leading to more extreme hot days and fewer cold nights. Shifts in the water cycle have been observed, with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off earlier in the year. Sea levels have risen, and wildland fires are becoming more frequent and intense due to dry seasons that start earlier and end later (CAT 2010). An increase in annual average temperature is a reasonably foreseeable effect of climate change. Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signals of climate change. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada (CCCC 2012). By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures could increase by 4.1°F to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels. Springtime warming—a critical influence on snowmelt—will be particularly pronounced. Summer temperatures will rise more than winter temperatures, and the increases will be greater in inland California, compared to the coast. Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer. There will be fewer extremely cold nights (CCCC 2012). A de cline of Sierra Nevada snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water storage in California, by 30% to as much as 90% is predicted over the next 100 years (CAT 2006). Model projections for precipitation over California continue to show the Mediterranean pattern of wet winters and dry summers with seasonal, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade variability. For the first time, however, several of the improved climate models shift toward drier conditions by the mid-to-late twenty-first century in central, and most notably, Southern California. By the late century, all projections show drying, and half of them suggest 30-year average precipitation will decline by more than 10% below the historical average (CCCC 2012). A summary of current and future climate change impacts to resource areas in California, as discussed in Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (CNRA 2014), is provided below. Agriculture Some of the specific challenges faced by the agricultural sector and farmers include more drastic and unpredictable precipitation and weather patterns; extreme weather events that range from severe flooding to extreme drought and destructive storm events; significant shifts in water availably and water quality; changes in pollinator lifecycles; temperature fluctuations, including extreme heat stress and decreased chill hours; increased risks from invasive species, weeds, agricultural pests, and plant diseases; and disruptions to the transportation and energy infrastructure supporting agricultural production. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-9 Biodiversity and Habitat Specific climate change challenges to biodiversity and habitat include species migration in response to climatic changes; range shift and novel combinations of species; pathogens, parasites and disease; invasive species; extinction risks; changes in the timing of seasonal life-cycle events; food web disruptions; and threshold effects (i.e., a change in the ecosystem that results in a “tipping point” beyond which irreversible damage or loss has occurs). Energy Specific climate change challenges for the energy sector include temperature, fluctuating precipitation patterns, increasing extreme weather events, and sea level rise. Forestry The most significant climate change related risk to forests is accelerated risk of wildfire and more frequent and severe droughts. Droughts have resulted in more large scale mortalities and, combined with increasing temperatures, have led to an overall increase in wildfire risks. Increased wildfire intensity subsequently increases public safety risks, property damage, fire suppression and emergency response costs, watershed and water quality impacts, and vegetation conversions. Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources Sea level rise, changing ocean conditions and other climate change stressors are likely to exacerbate long-standing challenges related to ocean and coastal ecosystems in addition to threatening people and infrastructure located along the California coastline and in coastal communities. Sea level rise in addition to more frequent and severe coastal storms and erosion are threatening vital infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power plants, ports and airports, gasoline pipes, and emergency facilities as well as negatively impacting the coastal recreational assets such as beaches and tidal wetlands. Public Health Climate change can impact public health through various environmental changes and is the largest threat to human health in the twenty-first century. Changes in precipitation patterns affect public health primarily through potential for altered water supplies and extreme events such as heat, floods, droughts, and wildfires. Increased frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat and heat waves are likely to increase the risk of mortality due to heat-related illness as well as exacerbate existing chronic health conditions. Other extreme weather events are likely to negatively impact air quality and increase or intensify respiratory illness such as asthma and allergies. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-10 Transportation While the transportation industry is a source of GHG emissions, it is also vulnerable to climate change risks. Increasing temperatures and extended periods of extreme heat threaten the integrity of the roadways and rail lines. High temperatures cause the road surfaces to expand which leads to increased pressure and pavement buckling. High temperatures can also cause rail breakages, which could lead to train derailment. Other forms of extreme weather events, such as extreme storm events, can negatively impact infrastructure, which can impair movement of peoples and goods, or potentially block evacuation routes and emergency access roads. Increased wildfires, flooding, erosion risks, landslides, mudslides, and rockslides can all profoundly impact the transportation system and pose a serious risk to public safety. Water Climate change could seriously impact the timing, form, amount of precipitation, runoff patterns, and frequency and severity of precipitation events. Higher temperatures reduce the amount of snowpack and lead to earlier snowmelt, which can impact water supply availability, natural ecosystems, and winter recreation. Water supply availability during the intense dry summer months is heavily dependent on the snowpack accumulated during the winter time. Increased risk of flooding has a variety of public health concerns including water quality, public safety, property damage, displacement, and post-disaster mental health problems. Prolonged and intensified droughts can also negatively affect groundwater reserves and result in increased overdraft and subsidence. The higher risk of wildfires can lead to increased erosion, which can negatively impact watersheds and result in poor water quality. In March 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) released Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans, a document that shows how California is acting to convert the recommendations contained in the 2014 Safeguarding California plan into action (CNRA 2016). Additionally, the CNRA released Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update in January 2018, which provides a roadmap for state agencies to protect communities, infrastructure, services, and the natural environment from climate change impacts. The 2018 Safeguarding California Plan includes 69 recommendations across 11 sectors and more than 1,000 on-going actions and next steps developed by scientific and policy experts across 38 state agencies (CNRA 2018). As with previous state adaptation plans, the 2018 Update addresses the following: acceleration of warming across the state, more intense and frequent heat waves, greater riverine flows, accelerating sea level rise, more intense and frequent drought, more severe and frequent wildfires, more severe storms and extreme weather events, shrinking snowpack and less overall precipitation, and ocean acidification, hypoxia, and warming. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-11 3.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Massachusetts v. EPA In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In D ecember 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act: • The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the “endangerment finding.” • The Administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs—from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.” These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions: • Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020, and direct National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks. • Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy-efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-12 Federal Vehicle Standards In 2007, in response to the Massachusetts v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Bush administration issued Executive Order (EO) 13432 directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016 (75 FR 25324–25728). In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021 (77 FR 62624–63200), and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6%–23% over the 2010 baselines (76 FR 57106–57513). In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types of sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (EPA and NHTSA 2016). State The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile sources, solid waste, water, and other state regulations and goals. The following text describes EOs, Assembly Bills (ABs), Senate Bills (SBs), and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-13 State Climate Change Targets The state has taken a number of actions to address climate change. These include EOs, legislation, and CARB plans and requirements. These are summarized below. Executive Order S-3-05 EO S-3-05 (June 2005) established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets and laid out responsibilities among the state agencies for implementing the EO and for reporting on progress toward the targets. This EO established the following targets: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels EO S-3-05 also directed the California Environmental Protection Agency to report biannually on progress made toward meeting the GHG targets and the impacts to California due to global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry. The Climate Action Team was formed, which subsequently issued reports from 2006 to 2010. Assembly Bill 32 In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32. The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (September 2006). AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives. Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills. SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the senate and three members of the assembly, in order to provide on-going oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the legislature to the state board as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the scoping plan. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-14 California Air Resources Board’s 2007 Statewide Limit In 2007, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 38550, CARB approved a statewide limit on the GHG emissions level for year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline (427 MMT CO2e). California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan One specific requirement of AB 32 is for CARB to prepare a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 (California Health and Safety Code, Section 38561[a]), and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. In 2008, CARB approved the first scoping plan. The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan) included a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives. The key elements of the Scoping Plan include the following (CARB 2008): 1. Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards 2. Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33% 3. Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California’s GHG emissions 4. Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets 5. Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (17 CCR Section 95480 et seq.) 6. Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high GWP gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation The Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions because they have broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect GHG emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Specifically, the Scoping Plan encouraged local governments to adopt a 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-15 reduction goal for municipal operations and for community emissions to reduce GHGs by approximately 15% from then levels (2008) by 2020. Many local governments developed community-scale local GHG reduction plans based on this Scoping Plan recommendation. In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (CARB 2014). The First Update concluded that California is on track to meet the 2020 target but recommended a 2030 mid-term GHG reduction target be established to ensure a continuum of action to reduce emissions. The First Update recommended a mix of technologies in key economic sectors to reduce emissions through 2050, including energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large- scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean energy technologies. As part of the First Update, CARB recalculated the state’s 1990 emissions level, using more recent GWPs identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from 427 MMT CO2e to 431 MMT CO2e. In 2015, as directed by EO B-30-15, CARB began working on an update to the Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. The governor called on California to pursue a new and ambitious set of strategies, in line with the five climate change pillars from his inaugural address, to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. In summer 2016, the legislature affirmed the importance of addressing climate change through passage of SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016). In January 2017, CARB released the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (Second Update) for public review and comment (CARB 2017a). The Second Update builds on the successful framework established in the initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies that will serve as the framework to achieve the 2030 GHG target and define the state’s climate change priorities to 2030 and beyond. The strategies’ known commitments include implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency (including the mandates of SB 350), increased stringency of the LCFS, measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, measures identified in the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and increased stringency of SB 375 targets. To fill the gap in additional reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target, it recommends continuing the cap-and-trade program and a measure to reduce GHGs from refineries by 20%. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-16 For local governments, the Second Update replaced the initial Scoping Plan’s 15% reduction goal with a recommendation to aim for a community-wide goal of no more than 6 MT CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 MT CO2e per capita by 2050, which are developed around the scientifically based levels necessary to limit global warming below 2℃. The Second Update recognized the benefits of local government GHG planning (e.g., through climate action plans [CAPs]) and provided more information regarding tools CARB is working on to support those efforts. It also recognizes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining provisions for project-level review where there is a legally adequate CAP. The Second Update was approved by CARB’s Governing Board on December 14, 2017. The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and the EOs and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. A project is considered consistent with the statutes and EOs if it meets the general policies in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of the state’s goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. As discussed in several cases, a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every planning policy or goal to be consistent. A project would be consistent if it would further the objectives and not obstruct their attainment. California Air Resources Board’s Regulations for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions CARB’s Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100– 95157) incorporated by reference certain requirements that EPA promulgated in its Final Rule on Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (Title 40, CFR Part 98). Specifically, Section 95100(c) of the Mandatory Reporting Regulation incorporated those requirements that EPA promulgated in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009; July 12, 2010; September 22, 2010; October 28, 2010; November 30, 2010; December 17, 2010; and April 25, 2011. In general, entities subject to the Mandatory Reporting Regulation that emit over 10,000 MT CO2e per year are required to report annual GHGs through the California Electronic GHG Reporting Tool. Certain sectors, such as refineries and cement plants, are required to report regardless of emission levels. Entities that emit more than the 25,000 MT CO2e per year threshold are required to have their GHG emission report verified by a CARB-accredited third-party. Executive Order B-18-12 EO B-18-12 (April 2012) directed state agencies, departments, and other entities under the governor’s executive authority to take action to reduce entity-wide GHG emissions by at least 10% by 2015 and 20% by 2020, as measured against a 2010 baseline. EO B-18-12 also established goals for existing state buildings for reducing grid-based energy purchases and water use. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-17 Executive Order B-30-15 EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achieving this goal, EO B-30-15 called for CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e. The EO also called for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. Senate Bill 605 and Senate Bill 1383 SB 605 (2014) requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short- lived climate pollutants in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) requires CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018. SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for CH4 and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon), and provides direction for reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, and as mentioned above, CARB adopted its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in March 2017. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide reduction of emissions of black carbon, CH4, and fluorinated gases (CARB 2017b). Building Energy Title 24, Part 6 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) (and revised if necessary) (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, in order to “reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (California PRC, Section 25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (California PRC, Section 25402[d]) and cost effectiveness (California PRC, Sections 25402[b][2] and [b][3]). As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment. The current Title 24 standards are the 2019 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which became effective January 1, 2020. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-18 Title 24, Part 11 In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as CALGreen, and establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and hospitals. The 2019 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards. For nonresidential projects, some of the key mandatory CALGreen 2019 standards involve requirements related to bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, shade trees, water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas, recycled water supply systems, construction waste management, excavated soil and land clearing debris, and commissioning (24 CCR Part 11). Title 20 Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. The CEC certifies an appliance based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the appliance meets the standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing each type of appliance covered under the regulations and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances. Senate Bill 1 SB 1 (August 2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the PRC, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for ratepayer-funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-19 minimum energy efficiency levels and performance requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry. The goals included establishing solar energy systems as a viable mainstream option for both homes and businesses within 10 years of adoption, and placing solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, also termed Go Solar California, was previously titled Million Solar Roofs. Assembly Bill 1470 (Solar Water Heating) This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. The bill makes findings and declarations of the legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement Senate Bill 1078 SB 1078 (September 2002) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard program, which required an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (see SB 107, EO S-14-08, and S-21-09). Senate Bill 1368 SB 1368 (September 2006) required the CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emission performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Assembly Bill 1109 Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general-purpose lighting and to reduce electricity consumption 50% for indoor residential lighting and 25% for indoor commercial lighting. Executive Order S-14-08 EO S-14-08 (November 2008) focused on the contribution of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. This EO required that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33% of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Furthermore, the EO directed state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The CNRA, through collaboration with CEC and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), was directed to lead this effort. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-20 Executive Order S-21-09 and Senate Bill X1-2 EO S-21-09 (September 2009) directed CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with the goal of EO S-14-08 by July 31, 2010. CARB was further directed to work with CPUC and CEC to ensure that the regulation built upon the Renewables Portfolio Standard program and was applicable to investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB was to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health and can be developed the most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, cost-effective electricity system operations. On September 23, 2010, CARB initially approved regulations to implement a Renewable Electricity Standard. However, this regulation was not finalized because of subsequent legislation (SB X1-2) signed by Governor Brown in April 2011. SB X1-2 expanded the Renewables Portfolio Standard by establishing a renewable energy target of 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33% by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years. Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation (30 megawatts or less), digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location. SB X1-2 applies to all electricity retailers in the state, including publicly owned utilities, investor- owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet the renewable energy goals listed above. Senate Bill 350 SB 350 (October 2015) further expanded the Renewables Portfolio Standard by establishing a goal of 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 included the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. Senate Bill 100 SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero - 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-21 carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling. Mobile Sources Assembly Bill 1493 AB 1493 (July 2002) was enacted in response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO2 emissions. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in a reduction of about 22% in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in a reduction of about 30%. Heavy Duty Diesel Truck and Bus Regulation CARB adopted the final Heavy Duty Truck and Bus Regulation, Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Section 2025, on December 31, 2014, to reduce DPM and oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The rule requires DPM filters be applied to newer heavier trucks and buses by January 1, 2012, with older vehicles required to comply by January 1, 2015. The rule will require nearly all diesel trucks and buses to be compliant with the 2010 model year engine requirement by January 1, 2023. CARB also adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles on December 12, 2013. This rule requires diesel-fueled vehicles with gross vehicle weights greater than 10,000 pounds to idle no more than 5 minutes at any location (13 CCR 2485). Executive Order S-1-07 EO S-1-07 (January 2007, implementing regulation adopted in April 2009) sets a declining LCFS for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the LCFS is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020 (17 CCR 95480 et seq.). The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-22 Senate Bill 375 SB 375 (Steinberg) (September 2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 requires CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035 and to update those targets every 8 years. SB 375 requires the state’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of their Regional Transportation Plan that will achieve the GHG reduction targets set by CARB. If an MPO is unable to devise a Sustainable Communities Strategy to achieve the GHG reduction target, the MPO must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. Pursuant to Government Code, Section 65080(b)(2)(K), a Sustainable Communities Strategy does not (i) regulate the use of land; (ii) supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or (iii) require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process. In September 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional MPOs. CARB set a target of 7% per capita reduction by 2020 and a 15% per capita reduction by 2035 for the Bay Area. The Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is the MPO for the Bay Area, adopted the Plan Bay Area: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2017– 2040 (Plan Bay Area) in July 2017 (ABAG and MTC 2017). The Plan Bay Area is a long-range plan for transportation projects within the planning area and established 13 performance targets covering three broad areas (the environment, equity, and the economy) to achieve the following goals/outcomes: climate protection, adequate housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic vitality, and transportation system effectiveness. Two of these targets are mandatory to comply with SB 375, and the Plan Bay Area establishes strategies to achieve 16% reduction per capita in GHG emissions from light-trucks and cars by 2035 (climate protection goal), and plans to house 100% of the region’s projected growth (from a 2010 baseline year) by income level without displacing current low-income residents (adequate housing goal). Advanced Clean Cars Program and Zero-Emissions Vehicle Program The Advanced Clean Cars Program (January 2012) is a new emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-23 smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 2012). To improve air quality, CARB has implemented new emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that in 2025 cars will emit 75% less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold today. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and the NHTSA, adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The Zero-Emissions Vehicle Program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars Program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of zero-emissions vehicles and plug-in hybrid EVs in the 2018 to 2025 model years. Executive Order B-16-12 EO B-16-12 (March 2012) required that state entities under the governor’s direction and control support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emissions vehicles. It ordered CARB, CEC, CPUC, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve benchmark goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025. On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 established a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. This directive did not apply to vehicles that have special performance requirements necessary for the protection of the public safety and welfare. Assembly Bill 1236 AB 1236 (October 2015) (Chiu) required a city, county, or city and county to approve an application for the installation of EV charging stations, as defined, through the issuance of specified permits, unless the city or county makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The bill provided for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified. The bill provided that the implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of EV charging stations is a matter of statewide concern. The bill required EV charging stations to meet specified standards. The bill required a city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance, by September 30, 2016, that created an expedited and streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations, as specified. The bill also required a city, county, or city and county with a population of less than 200,000 residents to adopt this ordinance by September 30, 2017. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-24 Water Executive Order B-29-15 In response to the on-going drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas. Solid Waste California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act – Assembly Bill 939 Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, mandated a focus on the conservation of natural resources. Cities and counties were required to create comprehensive source reduction, recycling, and composting programs (Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq.). The goal of these programs is to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills by 50%. The focus of this bill was a major change, shifting the emphasis from landfill disposal toward waste reduction, recycling, and composting whenever possible. This approach aims to conserve natural resources, save energy, decrease pollution, and provide new jobs in the waste industry. Assembly Bill 939 established the following priorities for waste management: • Waste reduction • Recycling and composting • Controlled combustion of waste to generate electricity • Landfilling Mandatory Commercial Recycling— AB 341 AB 341 was adopted as part of the AB 32 Scoping Plan by the Air Resources Board pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act on January 17, 2012. The legislation declares as a policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. The regulation requires businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings of five units or more to arrange for recycling services. The measure focuses on increasing commercial waste diversion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-25 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling—AB 1826 AB 1826 was enacted in October 2014 in order to divert commercial organic waste from landfills. The measure requires businesses and multifamily residential dwellings of five or more units to recycle organic waste on and after April 1, 2016 depending on how much solid waste they generate per week. The law includes phasing of requirements over time to ensure that the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases gradually. Mandatory Organics Recycling—SB 1383 Senate Bill 1383 was passed in September 2016, which established methane emissions reduction targets to reduce emissions from short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 aims to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the 2014 level of statewide organic waste disposal by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. Cities and Counties are required to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion programs that focus on recovering edible food for human consumption and diverting organic material from the landfill. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase organic waste diversion from landfills, feed people, and maximize use of existing resources. SB 1383 established the following requirements for Jurisdictions: • Mandatory organics collection program • Container contamination minimization • Container color requirement • Container labeling requirement • Edible Food Recovery Program • Organic waste recycling capacity planning • Procurement of recovered organic waste products • Enforcement Program Other State Actions Senate Bill 97 SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The advisory indicated that the lead agency should identify and estimate a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities (OPR 2008). The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-26 necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a level that is less than significant. The CNRA adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010. Under the amended Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures. The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. The CNRA also acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (CNRA 2009). With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies “should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or performance based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). Executive Order S-13-08 EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea level rise. Therefore, the EO directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009 (CNRA 2009), and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014 (CNRA 2014). To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas: agriculture, biodiversity and habitat, emergency management, energy, forestry, ocean and coastal ecosystems and resources, public health, transportation, and water. Issuance of Safeguarding California: 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-27 Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016 (CNRA 2016). In January 2018, the CNRA released Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which communicates current and needed actions that state government should take to build climate change resiliency (CNRA 2018). Local Contra Costa County Contra Costa County General Plan. The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005) contains the following goals and policies that would apply to the project. Goal 8-K To encourage the use of renewable resources where they are compatible with the maintenance of environmental quality. Goal 8-L To reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks of air pollution and energy shortages which could prevent orderly development. Goal 8-AB To continue to support Federal, State and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order to protect human and environmental health. Policy 8-49 Commercial wind farms shall be restricted to the south Byron Hills portion of the County. Policy 8-51 All new wind turbine applications shall comply, at a minimum, with the site-specific criteria included in the wind energy conversion systems regulations in the County Ordinance Code. Policy 8-100 Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. Policy 8-101 A safe, convenient and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving. Policy 8-102 A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. In 2015, the County adopted the Contra Costa County CAP, which provides a GHG emissions inventory, GHG forecast, GHG reduction target, and a set of strategies to respond to local contributions to climate change. Based on both the state CEQA Guidelines and Bay Area Air 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-28 Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria, the CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy (Contra Costa County 2015). The CAP establishes the County GHG reduction goal of reducing GHGs by 15% below year 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32. In addition, the CAP forecasts the potential GHG emissions and potential GHG reductions from proposed measures through year 2035. The CAP outlines the reduction efforts in six major GHG source areas, including energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, land use and transportation, solid waste, water conservation, and government operations. In addition, Appendix E of the County’s CAP includes a consistency checklist through which projects can demonstrate consistency and thereby conclude that their impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant under CEQA (Appendix F of this Environmental Impact Report). 3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance and Methodology The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to GHGs/climate change are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions would occur if the project would: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project level under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). The State of California has not adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-29 Technical Advisory titled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review (OPR 2008) states the following: Public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “[i]n the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact’, individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.” Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” Separate thresholds of significance have been established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (e.g., generators, furnaces, boilers) and nonstationary sources (e.g., on-road vehicles) (BAAQMD 2017). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be significant). For nonstationary sources, the following three separate thresholds have been established: • Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be significant). • 1,100 MT CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be significant). • 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.) As discussed previously, the County CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy based on both the state CEQA Guidelines and BAAQMD criteria (Contra Costa County 2015). Using the County’s current CAP consistency review checklist (Appendix E of the CAP, Appendix F of this document) as a guide, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project would comply with the County’s CAP. A “yes” or “not applicable” response to each of the CAP Consistency Review Checklist questions would result in a determination that the proposed project complies with the County’s CAP. A “no” response demonstrates the project is not fully compliant with the County’s CAP and additional analysis would be required. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-30 3.6.3.1 Methodology Construction Emissions from project construction activities were estimated using the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. All details for construction criteria air pollutants discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, are also applicable for the estimation of construction-related GHG emissions. As such, see Section 3.2 for a discussion of construction emissions calculation methodology and assumptions. Operations Emissions from the operational phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Operational year 2029 was assumed based on the first full year of operations. During long-term operations, the project would generate air pollutants from mobile, energy, and area sources. Traffic trips were estimated based on the land uses specified in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and by adjusting default weekday trip rates in CalEEMod to match those included in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (Appendix H) for the land use types.3 The same adjustment factors used for the weekday trip generation were applied to the default Saturday and Sunday trip rates in CalEEMod. Increased trip lengths for potential customers based on the rural location of the project, as well as the project specific vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for employees, as described in Chapter 3.13, Transportation, of this EIR. Non-work trip lengths were increased to account for potentially greater travel distance for deliveries. Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model outputs for traffic. Default CalEEMod assumptions were used for building and lighting electricity use, generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, distribution and wastewater treatment, natural gas combustion, and area sources (i.e., landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings for building maintenance). Solid waste disposal was adjusted to account for a 50% solid waste diversion rate consistent with AB 939 compliance. Energy use associated with the airport storage facilities was assumed to be equivalent to a warehouse. In addition, per the CEC Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings, the first-year savings for newly constructed nonresidential buildings are 197 gigawatt hours of electricity, 76.6 megawatt of demand, and 0.27 million therms of gas, representing reductions from the 2016 Title 24 standard 3 The Logistics/ Warehouse/ Distribution land use was modeled in CalEEMod with “Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail” and “Unrefrigerated Warehouse – With Rail” in order to delineate fleet mix and trip lengths for employees versus haul trucks, with 69% of trips assumed to be employees and 31% assumed to be trucks, based on the “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2014). 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-31 of 10.7%, 9%, and 1%, respectively (CEC 2018a). To take into account energy reductions associated with compliance with 2019 Title 24, the CalEEMod Title 24 electricity and natural gas values were reduced by 10.7% and 1%, respectively, for all project buildings. The applied reductions are anticipated to be conservative as in general, nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018b). 3.6.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.6-1. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Potentially Significant) The project would involve the construction and operation of approximately 274,000 square feet of logistics/warehouse/distribution buildings, 213,000 square feet of light industry/business park, 81,000 square feet of office uses, 91,000 square feet of commercial uses, 128,000 square feet of airport storage, 154,000 square feet of aviation-related buildings, and associated parking. In addition, the project would require 0.89 miles of roadway expansion and 2.6 miles of water infrastructure installation. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 10 years to complete. Total construction GHG emissions were estimated for all project components, including roadway improvements and water infrastructure, and amortized assuming a 30-year project lifetime. Long- term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project, with complete project build- out operations beginning in year 2029. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources and water/wastewater conveyance). These emissions are depicted in Table 3.6-3 for disclosure, with detailed model outputs and assumptions included in Appendix C. Table 3.6-3 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (MT/yr) Project Construction Amortized Construction Emissions 451.26 Project Operations Area 0.04 Energy 1,321.98 Mobile 12,976.55 Solid Waste 252.42 Water Supply and Wastewater 303.18 Total Operational Emissions 14,854.17 Operations + Amortized Construction Total* 15,305.43 Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide-equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year. * Total emissions may not sum due to rounding. Project GHG emissions are based on the “Mitigated” CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate the 50% solid waste diversion rate consistent with AB 939 compliance, even though this measure is not considered a separate mitigation measure. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-32 As depicted in Table 3.6-3 above, the project would result in an increase of GHG emissions, primarily associated with vehicular traffic (mobile sources) and energy use. However, in order to determine significance, the project was compared to the County’s CAP consistency checklist. The County’s CAP consistency checklist includes criteria against which a project must be evaluated. Projects that are consistent with the applicable criteria are considered consistent with the County’s CAP and would not have a significant GHG impact. As shown in the completed CAP Checklist in Appendix F, the project would not meet the following County CAP requirements: • EE 1: New nonresidential development will install high efficiency appliances and insulation. • RE 1: New residential and nonresidential development will meet the standards to be solar ready as defined by the California Building Standards Code. • LUT 2: New multifamily (greater than five units) and nonresidential (greater than 10,000 square feet) developments will provide EV charging stations in designated parking spots. • LUT 4: New residential and nonresidential development will be located within one half-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of a bus station. Since the project would not meet the applicable CAP consistency checklist criteria, it would be considered inconsistent with the County’s CAP without mitigation. As such, the project would have a potentially significant impact on climate change. Impact 3.6-2. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases . (Potentially Significant) The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. As such, the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects. Relatedly, in the Final Statement of Reasons for the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the CNRA observed that “the [Scoping Plan] may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009). Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high -GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., LCFS), among others. To the extent that these regulations are applicable to the project, the project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-33 Regarding consistency with SB 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and EO S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-year analysis. However, CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, the First Update states the following (CARB 2014): This level of reduction is achievable in California. In fact, if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under Assembly Bill 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional measures, including locally driven measures and those necessary to meet federal air quality standards in 2032, could lead to even greater emission reductions. In other words, CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and EO S-3-05. This is confirmed in the Second Update, which states (CARB 2017a), This Plan draws from the experiences in developing and implementing previous plans to present a path to reaching California’s 2030 GHG reduction target. The Plan is a package of economically viable and technologically feasible actions to not just keep California on track to achieve its 2030 target, but stay on track for a low- to zero-carbon economy by involving every part of the state. The 2017 Scoping Plan also states that although “the Scoping Plan charts the path to achieving the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, we also need momentum to propel us to the 2050 statewide GHG target (80% below 1990 levels). In developing this Scoping Plan, we considered what policies are needed to meet our mid-term and long-term goals” (CARB 2017a). With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and EO S-3-05, CARB has made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet SB 32’s 40% reduction target by 2030 and EO S-3-05’s 80% reduction target by 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. However, as described in Impact 3.6-1, the project would not be consistent with the County’s CAP, which is considered a qualified GHG reduction plan pursuant to CEQA, and established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-34 Therefore, the project would also be considered inconsistent with implementation of any of the above-described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. Based on the above considerations, the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be potentially significant. 3.6.5 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts during operation. These measures would be applied to individual development projects implemented under the Byron Airport Development Program. As a conservative approach, the reductions from Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3 were not quantified due to the lack of clarity on the quantity of reductions associated with these mitigation measures. MM-GHG-1 The individual development projects shall include the following transit-oriented and alternative transportation development design features to reduce the use of single-occupancy fossil fueled vehicles and vehicle miles traveled: • Provide preferred parking for zero/low emission vehicles. Bicycle parking and only the minimum amount of auto parking shall be provided to encourage alternative forms of travel. • Install conduits from the building(s) to the parking lot(s), to allow for installation of electric vehicle charging stations for vehicles. The proportion of electric vehicle parking spaces shall comply with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code. • The proposed project shall promote ridesharing programs through a multifaceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles; designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles; or providing a website or message board for coordinating rides. • The proposed project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip-reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip-reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy would result in lower vehicle miles traveled reductions. Marketing strategies may include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options; event promotions; or publications. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-35 MM-GHG-2 The individual development projects shall include the following design features to reduce the demand for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions: • Obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for building construction, where feasible. • Provide the maximum amount of skylights to reduce electricity use associated with interior lighting. • All facility lighting shall meet or exceed the applicable Title 24 requirements. • All installed appliances (e.g., washer/dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers) shall be Energy Star rated or equivalent. • Design proposed buildings with: o Roof structure with additional load (defined as 1 to 2 pounds per square foot) capacity to allow the future installation of solar panels without retrofitting. The installation of solar panels would comply with the policy and procedures set forth in the Interim Policy for FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports (78 FR 63276). o Installation of an above market sized electrical infrastructure system (larger electrical room for future expansion, underground conduits (car, truck and loading dock) for future electrical charging systems, as well as additional conduits into the grid system for future expand-ability. MM-GHG-3 The individual development projects shall incorporate the following design features to conserve water: • Install low flow plumbing fixtures, such as faucets, toilets, and showers. • Utilize water efficient landscaping to reduce the usage of outdoor water on the premises. • Construct dual plumbing for both potable and recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation, unless determined infeasible by Department of Conservation and Development, Current Planning Division. 3.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3 the project would be consistent with the CAP checklist items EE 1 (high efficiency appliances and insulation), RE 1 (solar ready), and LUT 2 (EV charging stations). However, based on the rural location of Byron Airport, the project would not comply with LUT 4 (located within one half-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit or Amtrak station or within one quarter-mile of a bus station). Therefore, the project 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-36 would not comply with the County CAP and the cumulative GHG impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Section 3.6.3, GHG emissions and climate change are by their very nature considered to be cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts are taken into account in the impact analysis in Section 3.6.4. 3.6.8 References Cited ABAG and MTC (Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission). 2017. Plan Bay Area: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2017–2040. Adopted July 26, 2017. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/ media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Accessed October 2018. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010.PDF. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. October 2008. Accessed October 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf. CARB. 2012. “California Air Resources Board Approves Advanced Clean Car Rules.” January 27. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-air-resources-board-approves-advanced-clean-car-rules. CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. Accessed October 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/ first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. CARB. 2017a. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Accessed October 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. CARB. 2017b. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 2017. Accessed January 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/ final_slcp_report.pdf. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-37 CARB. 2018a. “Glossary of Terms Used in Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” June 22, 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/faq/ghg_inventory_glossary.htm. CARB. 2018b. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory—2018 Edition.” July 11, 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/ 2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF. CAT. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Sacramento, California: California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. December 2010. CCCC (California Climate Change Center). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. CEC-500-2006-077. July 2006. Accessed October 2018. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006-077.PDF. CCCC. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. CEC-500-2012-009. July 2012. Accessed October 2018. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-007/CEC-500-2012-007.pdf. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2018a. Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. June. CEC. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet. March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/ 2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Accessed October 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/ Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk: An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. July 2014. Accessed October 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf. CNRA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans. March 2016. Accessed October 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/Safeguarding% 20California-Implementation%20Action%20Plans.pdf. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-38 CNRA. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. January 2018. Accessed October 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/ safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018-update.pdf. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan – Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30918/ Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2015. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 1, 2015. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. “Climate Change.” Last updated January 19, 2017. Accessed October 2018. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/ climatechange_.html. EPA. 2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2016. EPA 430-R-18- 003. Accessed October 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/ documents/2018_complete_report.pdf. EPA and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond. August 2016. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NL.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NL.PDF. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Accessed November 2018. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf. IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-39 IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC (eds.). https://www.ipcc.ch/ pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. “Technical Advisory— CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.” June 19, 2008. Accessed October 2018. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. PBL (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). 2017. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2017 Report. Accessed June 2018. http://www.pbl.nl/ sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2017-trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse- gas-emissons-2017-report_2674.pdf. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2014. “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage”. July 17, 2014. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/ handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/ finalswg071714backup.pdf 3.6 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.6-40 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-1 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes the existing hazardous materials within the vicinity of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. This impact analysis in this section is based on the Hazards Assessment prepared by Dudek (2018), attached as Appendix G to this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3.7.1 Existing Conditions The project site is located south of Armstrong Road at Byron Hot Springs Road near Byron, California (Figure 2-1, Project Location, of Chapter 2, Project Description). The project site consists of 1,319 acres, which includes airport property south of Armstrong Road and an adjacent 11.7-acre parcel with an existing single-family residence located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal (Figure 2-2, Project Site, of Chapter 2). The study area for hazardous conditions/materials includes all areas identified for development in the Byron Airport Master Plan and the 11.7-acre potential acquisition parcel (Figure 3.7-1, Hazards Site Map). It should be noted that the proposed project includes development on only 70 acres (Figure 2-3, Development Area and Safety Zones, of Chapter 2). The Byron Airport was opened to the public in 1994. Prior to the development of the airport, the project site appeared to include the smaller Byron Airpark in the northwestern portion of the project site, an agricultural area in the eastern portion of the project site, and two residences in the central portion of the project site. Some of the surrounding land was developed for agriculture and residences as early as 1949. The project site currently contains structures associated with the function of the airport such as a terminal, hangars, aircraft maintenance, fueling facilities, and airport administrative offices. The majority of the project site is vacant land, including land managed for habitat. A single-family house is located on the 11.7-acre parcel in the northeast corner of the project site. The surrounding area consists of agricultural land, vacant land, and some residential development. The existing conditions were assessed using the following sources: (1) regulatory files searched by Environmental Data Resources (EDR), (2) regulatory files available from Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs, (3) historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, (4) mapped pipeline information, and (5) additional site documents (see Appendix G of this EIR). The project site was identified in the EDR report as being listed in databases associated with aboveground petroleum storage tanks and generation and off-site disposal of hazardous materials. The site was also listed in the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System underground storage tank (UST) database, which may be associated with a possible UST on the former Byron Airpark site. It is not known if the potential UST was removed or where it was 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-2 located. No information about a UST was included in the Contra Costa County (County) files reviewed. However, an additional site document reviewed indicated the former presence of two fuel islands, one of which appears to have been located in the northern portion of the project site. Information regarding the use of hazardous materials at the project site was obtained from the Contra Costa Health Services Department and other records reviewed. The files indicate the following fuel and oil storage, use, and releases at the project site: • 10,000-gallon aviation fuel aboveground storage tank (AST) • 1,000-gallon gasoline AST • 200-gallon diesel AST (adjacent) • 250-gallon waste oil AST • 100-gallon aviation fuel release (remediated) • Potential presence of USTs or an additional fuel AST (indicated by former fuel islands); UST present on or near the project site in 1991 (per EDR report) • Minor releases from waste oil drums • At least one oil/water separator near the 250-gallon waste oil AST (Figure 3.7-1); additional oil/water separator potentially located near the aviation fuel AST • Water from the oil/water separator(s) running to the leach field • A hazardous liquid (crude oil) pipeline located in the western portion of the project site (Figure 3.7-1) Based on a review of the EDR report, it is not likely that operations or releases at surrounding sites have impacted environmental conditions at the project site. Additionally, based on review of historical aerial photographs, it appears that an area in the eastern portion of the project site was used for agriculture from the 1960s until the 1980s. Pesticides may have been used at the project site during this time. Three abandoned oil and gas wells are located within the Airport Boundary, south-southeast of the airport near Byron Hot Springs Road. Based on information provided by CalGEM, these wells have been abandoned, but not to current requirements prescribed by law (CalGEM 2021). These wells are identified by CalGEM as ‘Hannum Trust #1’, ‘Hannum Trust #2’, and ‘ROCO-Hannum Trust #2’. These wells are located within the area proposed for Habitat Management (see Figure 2-3). 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-3 3.7.1.1 Wildland Fire Severity Zone The project site is located in a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the Local Responsibility Area based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zoning map (CAL FIRE 2007). The project site is not within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Figure 3.7-2, Wildfire Hazards). 3.7.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances This section includes applicable federal, state, and local laws; regulatory guidance; and General Plan goals and policies that govern environmental hazards and hazardous materials in the County. Federal Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974/Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 was created to provide federal assistance to states and communities for research and development, education, and training on fire problems, setting priorities, and identifying possible solutions to problems. The 1974 act was amended in the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 to require, among other things, automatic sprinkler systems or an equivalent level of safety on buildings having more than 25 employees that have been purchased, constructed, or renovated with federal funds. Aviation and Transportation Security Act On November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was enacted, which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and transferred authority for enforcement of civil aviation security requirements (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1542) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to TSA. TSA has operated its civil enforcement program utilizing many of the FAA procedures and policies already in place. TSA’s stated mission is to “protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce”. The TSA’s Office of Security Operations provides “risk‐based, adaptive security” that includes airport checkpoint and baggage screening operations, regulatory compliance, cargo inspections, and other specialized programs designed to secure transportation (14 CFR 139). The airport is a federally regulated facility under 14 CFR 139. The airport is required to have an Airport Operating Certificate per 14 CFR 139, in addition to meeting numerous federal regulations. These regulations include standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment and services, including response times and personnel training, the handling and storing of hazardous materials, and safety inspection and reporting procedures. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circulars FAA advisory circulars (ACs) include specific guidance on a number of topics related to airport design, operation, and maintenance. The use of FAA ACs is mandatory for those airport construction projects 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-4 receiving funds under the Airport Improvements Program (see FAA Grant Assurance No. 34, Policies, Standards, and Specifications). The following ACs are pertinent to fire/emergency services: • FAA AC 150/5210‐15A, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Station Building Design. Provides additional guidance on the design of the aircraft rescue and firefighting building. • FAA AC 150/5370‐2G, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction. Sets forth guidelines for operational safety on airports during construction. National Fire Protection Association Codes and Standards The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a membership organization that develops and monitors the use of over 300 fire codes and standards that have been widely incorporated into state and local fire codes. There are no legislative enforcement mechanisms in place. By working through numerous technical committees, the NFPA uses a consensus approach to solve many safety‐related issues. According to the NFPA website, the standards are updated every 3–5 years (NFPA 2018). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by congress on December 11, 1980. It established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Amended in 1986, the act establishes two primary actions: (1) to coordinate short-term removal of hazardous materials and (2) to coordinate and manage the long-term remedial response actions associated with sites identified on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priorities List. The National Priorities List lists known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System is a national database and management system used by the EPA to track cleanup activities at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act hazardous waste sites. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC 6901–6992) established a program administered by the EPA for regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (PL 98-616), which affirmed and extended the “cradle-to-grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-5 specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act. Under the authority of RCRA, the regulatory framework for managing hazardous waste, including requirements for entities that generate, store, transport, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste is found in 40 CFR, Parts 260 – 299. California is delegated authority from the EPA to enforce RCRA and its own Hazardous Waste Control Act (see following sections) in California. The EPA retains enforcement authority. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The 1984 federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA are focused on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive UST program. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation under Title 49 of the United States Code. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation. State California Accidental Release Prevention Program The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program (19 CCR 2735.1 et seq.) regulates facilities that use or store regulated substances, such as toxic or flammable chemicals, in quantities that exceed established thresholds. The overall purpose of CalARP is to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances and reduce the severity of releases that may occur. The CalARP Program meets the requirements of the EPA Risk Management Program, which was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments. California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory In California, the handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Division 20, Chapter 6.95, of the California Health and Safety Code (Section 25500 et seq.). Under Sections 25500– 25543.3, facilities handling hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). HMBPs contain basic information about the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the state. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-6 Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for HMBPs. Each business shall prepare an HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material (including hazardous waste) or an extremely hazardous material in disclosable quantities greater than or equal to the following (California Health and Safety Code, Section 25503.5): • 500 pounds of a solid substance • 55 gallons of a liquid • 200 cubic feet of compressed gas • A hazardous compressed gas in any amount (highly toxic with a Threshold Limit Value of 10 parts per million or less) • Extremely hazardous substances in threshold planning quantities In addition, in the event that a facility stores quantities of specific acutely hazardous materials above the thresholds set forth by California code, facilities are also required to prepare a risk management plan and CalARP plan. The risk management plan and accidental release prevention plan provide information about the potential impact zone of a worst-case release and require plans and programs designed to minimize the probability of a release and mitigate potential impacts. California Hazardous Waste Control Act The Department of Toxic Substances Control is responsible for the enforcement of the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code, Section 25100 et seq.), which creates the framework under which hazardous wastes are managed in California. The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA cradle-to-grave waste management system in California. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous waste and development of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements. The Hazardous Waste Control Act lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. According to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 66001 et seq., substances having a characteristic of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity are considered hazardous. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have a practical use, such as material that has been abandoned, discarded, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability or death. For example, toxic substances can cause eye or skin irritation, disorientation, headache, nausea, allergic reactions, acute poisoning, chronic illness, or other adverse 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-7 health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substance involved). Carcinogens (substances known to cause cancer) are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include most heavy metals, pesticides, and benzene (a carcinogenic component of gasoline). Ignitable substances (e.g., gasoline, hexane, and natural gas) are hazardous because of their flammable properties. Corrosive substances (e.g., strong acids and bases such as sulfuric [battery] acid or lye) are chemically active and can damage other materials or cause severe burns upon contact. Reactive substances (e.g., explosives, pressurized canisters, and pure sodium metal, which react violently with water) may cause explosions or generate gases or fumes. Other types of hazardous materials include radioactive and biohazardous materials. Radioactive materials and wastes contain radioisotopes, which are atoms with unstable nuclei that emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability. Radioactive waste mixed with chemical hazardous waste is referred to as “mixed wastes.” Biohazardous materials and wastes include anything derived from living organisms. They may be contaminated with disease-causing agents, such as bacteria or viruses (22 CCR 66261.1 et seq.). California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR 330 et seq.). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings. The employer is also required, among other things, to have an Illness and Injury Prevention Program. Certified Unified Program The California EPA implements and enforces a statewide hazardous materials program known as the Certified Unified Program, established by Senate Bill 1802 to consolidate, co ordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following environmental and emergency management programs for hazardous materials: • Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans) • CalARP Program • UST Program • Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-8 • Hazardous Waste Generator and On-Site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs • California Uniform Fire Code, Hazardous Materials Management Plans, and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements To ensure consistency in the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement related to the handling and storage of hazardous wastes and materials, California EPA oversees the Certified Unified Program and certifies local government agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies to implement hazardous waste and materials standards. In the County, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department is the Certified Unified Program Agency. Cortese List The Hazardous Wastes and Substances Site (Cortese) List, maintained by California EPA, is a list of data resources used by state and local agencies and developers to provide information about the location of hazardous materials release sites, per Government Code Section 65962.5. The Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Board, and California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery all contribute data related to hazardous waste and substances sites, leaking USTs, solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels, active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders, and hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action. General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits and Waste Discharge Requirements To enable efficient permitting under both the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board run permit programs that group similar types of activities that have similar threats to water quality. These general permit programs include the Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System1 Permit, the construction general permit, the industrial general permit, and other general permits for low-threat discharges. The construction and industrial stormwater programs are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, while the Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit and other general Waste Discharge Requirements are administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Point source discharges or other activities that threaten water quality that are not covered under a general permit must seek individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and/or Waste Discharge Requirements, depending on the type, location, and destination of the discharge. For these types of discharges, the initial step in the 1 A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System is defined in as a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, or storm drains) that serve medium and large cities or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-9 process is to submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, who then determines the appropriate permitting pathway. Applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for the proposed project are discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. California Building Standards Code The 2016 California Building Standards Code (24 CCR) was published July 1, 2016, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. A supplement was published January 1, 2017, with an effective date of July 1, 2018. The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building criteria from three different origins: (1) building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes; (2) building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and (3) building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns. State Fire Regulations The California Fire Code (CFC) is Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which includes regulations concerning building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. It was created by the California Building Standards Commission and is based on the International Fire Code created by the International Code Council. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The CFC and the California Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety (24 CCR Part 9). These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every 3 years and was most recently updated in 2016, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. Wildfire Protection Fire safety is regulated throughout the state through a variety of fire protection laws, including the designation of fire hazard areas. California Public Resources Code, Sections 4251–4299, provide for permitted activities and procedures for development within fire hazard areas, including the establishment and management of defensible space (buffers managed to ensure fuel reduction around 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-10 structures). CAL FIRE regulates State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), which are areas where the state has primary responsibility for fire prevention and protection services (as opposed to local and/or federal agencies). Within SRAs, developers must provide for emergency access, signs and building numbering, private water supply reserves for emergency fire use, and vegetation modifications. The majority of the project site (excluding a portion south of Holey Road) is located within an SRA and is identified as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2007). The project site is within CAL FIRE’s Santa Clara Unit. California Public Resources Code, Section 4290, required CAL FIRE to adopt regulations regarding minimum requirements for road access to land uses within SRAs and high fire hazard areas. These regulations are now contained within the SRA Fire Safe Regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1270 et seq. To provide for two-way traffic flow to support emergency vehicle and civilian egress, all roads within an SRA shall be constructed to provide a minimum of two 10-foot traffic lanes, not including shoulder and striping. California Government Code Section 51182 and Public Resources Code, Section 4291, require fire risk reduction measures to be enforced by local agencies and CAL FIRE for occupied dwellings or structures. These measures require the following: • Maintaining a fire break made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not less than 100 feet on each side of a dwelling or structure, or to the property line whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth. This does not apply to single specimen trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants that are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any dwelling or structure. • Maintaining additional fire protection or firebreaks made by removing all brush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth that is located within 100 feet from an occupied dwelling or occupied structure or to the property line, or at a greater distance if required by state law, or local ordinance, rule, or regulation. • Removal of that portion of any tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe. • Maintaining any tree adjacent to or overhanging any building free of dead or dying wood. • Maintaining the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead vegetative material. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-11 Local Contra Costa County General Plan The County’s General Plan establishes goals and policies for hazards and hazardous materials. The General Plan Public Safety Element contains the following policies that apply to hazards (Contra Costa County 2005): Goal 10-I To provide public protection from hazards associated with the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances. Goal 10-N To provide for a continuing high level of public protection services and coordination of services in a disaster. Goal 7-AA To incorporate requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning and approval process. Goal 7-AD To provide special fire protection for high-risk land uses and structures. Policy 10-61 Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and from public agencies shall be identified and eliminated. Policy 10-62 Storage of hazardous materials and wastes shall be strictly regulated. Policy 10-63 Secondary containment and periodic examination shall be required for all storage of toxic materials. Policy 10-64 Industrial facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with up-to-date safety and environmental protection standards. Policy 10-65 Industries which store and process hazardous materials shall provide a buffer zone between the installation and the property boundaries sufficient to protect public safety. The adequacy of the buffer zone shall be determined by the County Planning Agency. Policy 10-68 When an emergency occurs in the transportation of hazardous materials, the County Office of Emergency Services shall be notified as soon as possible. Policy 7-62 The County shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due station, and a minimum of 3 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-12 firefighters to be maintained in all central business district (CBD), urban and suburban areas. (These areas are defined in Section 4). Policy 7-63 The County shall strive to achieve a total response time (dispatch plus running and set-up time) of five minutes in CBD, urban and suburban areas for 90 percent of all emergency responses. Policy 7-64 New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. Policy 7 -71 A set of special fire protection and prevention requirements shall be developed for inclusion in development standards applied to hillside, open space, and rural area development. Policy 7-72 Special fire protection measures shall be required in high risk uses (e.g., mid-rise and high-rise buildings, and those developments in which hazardous materials are used and/or stored) as conditions of approval or else be available by the district prior to approval. Policy 7-80 Wildland fire prevention activities and programs such as controlled burning, fuel removal, establishment of fire roads, fuel breaks and water supply, shall be encouraged to reduce wildland fire hazards. Policy 7-81 All structures located in Hazardous Fire Areas, as defined in the Uniform Fire Code, shall be constructed with fire-resistant exterior materials, such as fire safe roofing, and their surroundings are to be irrigated and landscaped with fire-resistant plants, consistent with drought resistance and water conservation policies. Measure 10-ae Request that state and federal agencies with responsibilities for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials review regulations and procedures, in cooperation with the County, to determine means of mitigating the public safety hazard in urbanized areas. Contra Costa County Health Services Department The implementation of the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.11) is managed by the County Health Services Department, which is certified by the California Secretary of Environmental Protection. The County Health Services Department manages the regulatory programs for HMBPs, USTs, hazardous waste generators, and CalARP. The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-13 Area Plan, adopted by the County in 2009, provides the framework for the coordination of management, monitoring, containment, and removal of hazardous materials for County regulatory and response agencies. Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services has overall responsibility for implementation of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), under the direction of the County Administrator. The purpose of the EOP is to provide the basis for a coordinated response before, during and after an emergency affecting the County (Contra Costa County 2015). The EOP applies to all emergencies in unincorporated areas of the County and that generate situations requiring planned, coordinated responses. The EOP also applies to emergencies that occur within incorporated areas, to the extent that those emergencies require multi-agency coordination at the operational area level. Potential emergencies include hazardous materials spills and wildfire. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 required state and local governments to develop Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. The County participated in an effort led by the Association of Bay Area Governments in 2004 to meet this requirement. The County adopted an update of that HMP in 2011 that completely restructured the plan as a countywide plan focused on the County (as opposed to the previous multicounty plan). The plan, in compliance with federal requirements, includes a description of the planning process, a risk assessment, a mitigation strategy (goals, alternatives, and a prioritized action plan), a plan maintenance section, and documentation of plan adoption (Contra Costa County 2011). The County HMP also includes a second volume that includes the various special districts within the County as planning partners. 3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous material would occur if the project would: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-14 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. 6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, this chapter addresses the wildfire issues in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant effect may result if the project is located in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and would: 7. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. 8. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. 9. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Regarding item 5, the project site is located on public airport land with an airport land use plan. As part of the proposed project, the airport land use plan would be updated to reflect recent regulatory guidance and the most recent airport layout plan. The project incorporates safety considerations for people working on the airport and residing or working in the airport vicinity. See Chapter 2 and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, for discussion of this issue. 3.7.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.7-1. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant) Hazardous materials used and stored on the project site include aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel, waste oil, and detergents. While the number of airport operations is forecast to increase, the type of activities would be similar to existing uses. Future aviation operations at the project site would 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-15 therefore involve similar storage, use, and disposal of fuel and oil. These hazardous materials would be safely managed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. As the quantities of hazardous materials handled by the airport currently and would likely still equal or exceed 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of solids, and/or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at any time, an HMBP would be prepared/updated for the project site and submitted to the Certified Unified Program Agency via the California Environmental Reporting System. The HMBP would include an inventory of hazardous materials, present a site map identifying locations of hazardous materials and safety equipment, and address preparedness for emergency response to incidents involving hazardous materials. Likewise, as the project site involves the aboveground storage of an aggregate quantity of 1,320 gallons or more of petroleum or petroleum products, a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan would be prepared/updated and implemented. Accumulation, management, and disposal of hazardous waste is regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the EPA. Under federal regulation (RCRA), waste is classified as hazardous based on the process that generated the listed waste or its characteristics of ignitibility, reactivity, corrosion and/or toxicity. California mandates further criteria for hazardous waste in addition to those established under the RCRA. Waste accumulation is regulated based on the quantities produced and the distance to the nearest treatment, storage, and disposal facility. Once classified as hazardous, waste would not accumulate longer than 90 days for large quantity generators and 180 days (or 270 days if the distance to the treatment, storage, and disposal facility is more than 200 miles) for small quantity generators. These accumulation times begin as soon as the waste begins accumulating. For a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator, hazardous waste can accumulate for 180 days (or 270 days if the distance to the treatment, storage, and disposal facility is more than 200 miles) once 100 kg of hazardous waste has accumulated. Waste considered acutely or extremely hazardous must be removed within 90 days for small quantity generators and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators. Hazardous and non-hazardous waste would be stored, labeled, and manifested in accordance with state and federal regulations, including those summarized in the Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements. Waste oil, which is currently generated at the airport and would likely continue to be generated, is the only California- hazardous waste anticipated for the project site. Airport fueling would be completed in accordance with general standards for airport fueling operations, as presented in the 2015 Airport Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 63, Overview of Airport Fueling System Operations. Development of non-aviation uses, including light industrial, warehousing, commercial, and office uses, may also result in the routine use and storage of hazardous materials. These materials may 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-16 include solvents, paints, waste oil, and other petroleum products. As described above, if these materials are stored in sufficient quantities on site, an HMBP and/or Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan would be completed. In conclusion, routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would be completed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.7-2. The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment thro ugh reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment . (Potentially Significant) As described in the Existing Conditions, Section 3.7-1, there are three abandoned oil and gas wells located within the Airport Boundary, near Byron Hot Springs Road. These wells are located within the proposed Habitat Management Area; development is not anticipated or proposed within this area. The closest well to a proposed development area is approximately 0.4 miles to the southeast; the other two wells are approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the development area. While the wells have not been abandoned in accordance with current rules and regulations, development is not proposed in this area, and the wells will therefore not be impacted by the project. Therefore the impact to the existing wells would be less than significant. If, in the future, non-project activities disturb or otherwise impact these wells, abandonment would be required in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 3208.1. As defined in PRC 3208.1, either the property owner or the party building over or otherwise disturbing the integrity of the abandoned well would be responsible for the abandonment. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations would avoid any adverse environmental effects. While there have been no known releases to the subsurface causing contamination (there have been minor releases from drums and a fuel release to the surface that was cleaned up), it is possible that subsurface releases/contamination have occurred in areas of fuel/oil storage and use (areas near the ASTs, wash rack, oil/water separator[s], crude oil pipeline, leach field, former fuel islands, and potential USTs) (Figure 3.7-1). Construction activities in these areas could result in encountering contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Exposure of contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment would result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 would require the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan. While potential oil and fuel releases can be identified during construction using visual and odor indicators and air monitoring, potential pesticide impacts are not easily identified during construction. As discussed in the Section 3.7.1, Existing Conditions, based on a review of historical aerial photographs, it appears that an area in the eastern portion of the project site was used for 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-17 agriculture from the 1960s until the 1980s. Pesticides may have been used at the project site during this time. Exposure of pesticide-contaminated soils to workers and the surrounding environment during grading and construction would result in potentially significant impacts. MM HAZ-2 requires soil sampling, analysis, and potential remediation of soils in this former agricultural area. Impact 3.7-3. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (No Impact) All existing nearby schools are more than 0.25 miles from the project site. The closest schools to the project site (at the closest point) include Byron Elementary (3.2 miles north), Vista Oaks Charter (3.3 miles north), Delta Vista High School (3.1 miles north), Mountain House Elementary (4.1 miles southeast), Altamont Elementary (5.4 miles southeast), Bethany Elementary (5.9 miles southeast), Wicklund Elementary (6.3 miles southeast), Julius Cordes School (6.7 miles southeast), Hansen Elementary (6.3 miles southeast), and Mountain House High School (6.4 miles southeast). The proposed project would not include any operations that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Impact 3.7-4. The project would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would potentially result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (No Impact). The EDR search conducted for the project site did not identify the presence of sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (also known as the Cortese List). The disturbance of previously unlisted contaminated areas from project activities is addressed in Impact 3.7-2. There would be no impact related to hazardous materials sites included on the Cortese List. Impact 3.7-5. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant) The project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The EOP and HMP do not identify specific criteria or evacuation routes that apply to the airport. Local roads serving the airport currently meet the minimum requirements for two-way access (10-foot travel lanes). However, expansion of airport-related uses at the airport would require roadway improvements (Section 3.13, Transportation). This would result in long-term access improvements. Construction activities may result in short-term lane closures, but any lane closures due to construction activity would be coordinated with emergency service providers to maintain access. Access to the airport and surrounding properties would be maintained throughout 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-18 construction. The project impact associated with impairing implementation of or physically interfering with the adopted emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. Impact 3.7-6. The project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (Less than Significant) As discussed in Section 3.12, Public Services, fire protection for the project vicinity is provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the airport provides fire protection for aviation activities. The closest fire station to the project site is East Contra Costa Fire Station 59 located approximately 5.7 miles north of the site. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District enforces the County’s current Fire Code, which provides strict requirements for fire suppression systems, use of fire-resistant building materials, and visible address signage. The project area is not located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is partially located within an SRA, with a moderate fire hazard severity risk. The project would not introduce residential uses. Non-residential structures at the project, due to being within an SRA, would comply with state requirements for access/egress, signage, and defensible space (including fuel management). The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project site is relatively flat, with hills rising to the west. The development areas within the project site are primarily agricultural or vacant/ruderal grasslands. The prevailing wind direction varies. During the summer, strong afternoon winds from the west may occur (see Section 3.2, Air Quality). For these reasons, the project site is identified as moderate for fire hazard severity. The project would not introduce residences or vegetation that would exacerbate this risk. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.7-7. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (Less than Significant) The project would require the installation of infrastructure (e.g., roadway improvements, water supply improvements, sewer facilities). These facilities would not exacerbate fire risk, and improved roadways and water infrastructure may be a beneficial impact for wildfire risk. This impact would be less than significant. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-19 Impact 3.7-8. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (Less than Significant) The project would not expose people or structures to secondary impacts of wildfire, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As discussed, the project site is relatively flat and not subject to landslides. Flooding risk is limited to a small area in the northeast corner of the project associated with Brushy Creek. This impact would be less than significant. 3.7.5 Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1 Prior to initiation of grading and construction, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be in-place and consist of the following: • Identification of areas of potential fuel- or oil-impacted soils on a site plan. • Protocol for identifying suspected contaminated soils (e.g., discoloring, odor, positive photoionization detector readings), utilizing personnel trained in recognition of contaminated soils/groundwater and certified with respect to Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (i.e., OSHA HAZWOPER training). • Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and to Contra Costa Environmental Health Division and local agencies, as needed. • Procedures for temporary cessation of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern. • Procedures for limiting access to the contaminated area to personnel with OSHA HAZWOPER training. • A worker health and safety plan for excavation of contaminated soil and/or groundwater. • Procedures for characterizing, managing, and disposing of potentially contaminated soils. MM-HAZ-2 Prior to development of the former agricultural areas identified in Figure 3.7-1, Hazards Site Map, soil samples shall be collected and tested for pesticides. Shallow soil samples shall be collected from the upper 0.5 to 1.0 foot of ground surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8081A and arsenic by EPA Method 6010B. The soil samples shall 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-20 be analyzed by a California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program- certified laboratory. The pesticide sampling data shall be compared to applicable regulatory threshold levels such as the EPA Regional Screening Levels and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office Note 3 screening levels. The arsenic sampling data shall be compared to California typical background levels, such as those in the 1996 Kearney Foundation Special Report on Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. If the soil sampling concentrations, using the 95% upper confidence level or other statistical evaluation, exceed the screening level, mitigation shall include removal of impacted soil for off-site disposal prior to or during construction grading. A soil management plan, including a health and safety plan, shall be prepared to properly manage the excavated soil and protect worker and public health and safety. 3.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation MM-HAZ-1 would require a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan to address any accidental discovery of contaminated soils or groundwater during project construction. The procedures would protect workers and members of the public from hazardous materials impacts. A related mitigation measure, MM-HAZ-2, would require sampling of soils in former agricultural areas, and if pesticide levels exceed health standards, remediation would be required. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, Impact 3.7-2 would be reduced to less than significant. 3.7.7 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative analysis for hazards and hazardous materials is based on development considered in the County General Plan. The vicinity of the project site is primarily designated for agricultural use. Although agricultural operations may involve the use of pesticides and petroleum products (for vehicles and equipment), such uses would not be of a type or quantity that would interact with the proposed project to produce cumulative effects. The Hazards Assessment prepared in support of this EIR (Appendix G) identifies hazardous materials storage, use, and release sites on and near the project site. The potential project–related effects related to these sites are addressed in the impact analysis, Section 3.7.4. No future development identified in the General Plan would affect these sites in a manner that would create a cumulative impact. In addition, compliance with existing regulations and with MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would reduce any project contribution to potential cumulative impacts to less than significant. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-21 3.7.8 References Cited CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA.” Contra Costa County. November 7, 2007. CalGEM (California Geologic Energy Management Division). 2021. Well Finder (WellSTAR) online database. Accessed August 24, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020 – Safety Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30920/ Ch10-Safety-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2011. Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. May 2011. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/3294/Hazard-Mitigation?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2015. Emergency Operations Plan. Approved June 16, 2015. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37349/Contra-Costa-Emergency- Operations-Plan-2015?bidId=. NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2018. “An Introduction to the NFPA Standards Development Process.” https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/codes-and-standards/ regulations-directory-and-forms/Stds_Dev_Process_Booklet_2018.ashx?la=en. 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 5/22/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.7-1_HazardSiteMap.mxd200 gal AST Diesel Fuel Wash Rack 250 gal AST Waste Oil 10,000 gal AST 100LL fuel and 1,000 gal AST Unleaded fuel Leach Field Former Fuel Island Armstrong Road Byron Hot Springs RdHoley RoadFalcon WayHazards Site Map Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: ESRI 2019 01,000500Feet Former Agricultural Areas Former Runway Crude Oil Pipeline Development Areas Airport Related Airport Reserve Development Reserve Low Intensity Use FIGURE 3.7-1 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-24 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 5/22/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.7-2_FireHazards.mxdBYRON HW Y OSPREY CTEAGLE CTBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDCLIFTON CT HOLEY RD BRUNS RDARMST R O N G R D FALCON WAYVASCO RDNORTHBRUNS WAYWildfire Hazards Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: NAIP 2016, Contra Costa County 2017, CalFire 2019 02,0001,000 Feet Airport Property Project Boundary Wildfire Hazard Zone Moderate (State Responsibility Area) FIGURE 3-7.2 3.7 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.7-26 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-1 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. In response to the Notice of Preparation, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) sent a letter listing the regulatory framework potentially applicable to the site; applicable regulations are described in Section 3.8.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances. 3.8.1 Existing Conditions 3.8.1.1 Watersheds Regionally, watersheds within the project site are identified based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset (USGS 2018). The Watershed Boundary Dataset delineates watersheds according to hydrologic units (HUs), which are nested within one another according to the scale of interest. USGS identifies HUs by name and by hydrologic unit code (HUC), which gets longer as the watershed boundaries are delineated at a finer scale (i.e., more detailed). For example, at a statewide scale, HUs consist of large regions and subregions draining to a common outlet. At this scale, the project site is within the 1,232-square-mile San Joaquin Delta Subbasin (HUC 18040003), whose outlet point is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay. These watershed areas are listed in Table 3.8-1. Table 3.8-1 Watersheds Intersected by the Byron Airport Basin (HUC, size) Subbasin (HUC, size) Watershed (HUC, size) Subwatershed (HUC, size) San Joaquin (180400, 15,825 mi2) San Joaquin Delta (18040003, 1,232 mi2) Old River (1804000306, 243 mi2) Brushy Creek (180400030603, 16 mi2) Lower Old River (180400030605, 104 mi2) Clifton Court Forebay (180400030604, 25 mi2) Source: USGS 2018. Note: HUC = hydrologic unit code; mi2 = square miles. The project site crosses several subwatershed boundaries within the 243-square-mile Old River Watershed (HUC 1804000306) (USGS 2018). Figure 3.8-1 shows the creeks and subwatersheds that occur within the Byron Airport property and the proposed development area (i.e., aviation and non- aviation uses). The development area boundary is largely within the 16-square-mile Brushy Creek subwatershed (HUC 180400030603), although a small part of the southeastern portion of the development area is within the 104-square-mile Lower Old River subwatershed. The southeastern part of the airport property lies within the 25-square-mile Clifton Court Forebay subwatershed. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-2 In managing water resources, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) classifies watersheds in a hierarchical system similar to the USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset, but with watershed names and boundaries that are designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). These geographic boundaries are likewise watershed based, but are typically referred to as hydrologic basins and are defined in the Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley: Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) (Central Valley RWQCB 2015).1 These generally constitute the geographic basis around which many surface water quality problems and goals/objectives are defined, and consist of surface water HUs, hydrologic areas, and hydrologic subareas. The project site is partially within the North Diablo Range HU (HU 543.00) and partially within San Joaquin Delta HU (HU 544.00) (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). The Basin Plan does not designate hydrologic areas or subareas for the project site (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). 3.8.1.2 Surface Water Features and Drainage Patterns The project site ranges in elevation from 30 feet above mean sea level near the intersection of Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road to 125 feet above mean sea level in the middle part of the site’s western boundary (Google Earth 2018). The airport reference elevation is 76 feet above mean sea level. Elevations on site generally decrease from southwest to northeast. Stormwater drainage is generally expected to flow in a similar direction, and/or toward Brushy Creek in the central, northern, and western portions of the site and toward the unnamed ephemeral drainage in the southeastern part of the site. Brushy Creek is the primary natural waterway that crosses the project site (Figure 3.8-1). Brushy Creek starts in Alameda County near the eastern flank of Brushy Peak and flows to the north. Several unnamed spring-fed streams converge with Brushy Creek north of the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. The lower reach of Brushy Creek enters the alluvial plain near the Byron Airport. East of the northern border of the airport, Brushy Creek confluences with Indian Slough, which in turn confluences with Old River, before joining the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (USGS 2018). Brushy Creek enters the southwestern part of the airport property where it under-crosses Armstrong Road, flows north-northeast to a marshy flat area south of the airport’s main access road (Falcon Way), under-crosses Falcon Way through a culvert, snakes between the skydiving operation to the west and the western end of Runway 12-30 to the east, and exits the northern border of the site under Armstrong Road. Brushy Creek is classified by the USGS as a perennial stream upstream of its first crossing of Armstrong Road, and an intermittent (i.e., seasonal) stream 1 The Basin Plan for each region serves as the regulatory reference for meeting both state and federal requirements for water quality control. It designates beneficial uses to be protected, water quality objectives to pr otect those uses, and a program of implementation needed for achieving those objectives. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-3 downstream of Armstrong Road (within the project site) (USGS 2018). Flow in Brushy Creek slows to a trickle or subsurface flow during the late summer and early fall seasons. Based on review of aerial photography and topography, Brushy Creek appears to be quite deeply entrenched within the alluvial plain. East of the airport, Brushy Creek enters Italian Slough, which meanders north along the western perimeter of Clifton Court Forebay, toward Old River. Although Brushy Creek crosses the airport property, the primary receiving water for the existing and proposed development footprint of the project is an approximately 15-acre detention basin located southeast of Runway 12-30 and east of Runway 5-23 (Google Earth 2018; LFA 2005). This basin, along with a system of drainage ditches and stormwater pipes designed for a 10 -year storm, collects runoff from the majority of the developed portions of the project site (Figure 3.8- 2, Site Drainage) (Mead and Hunt 2013). The existing aviation uses (administration building, aircraft and vehicle parking, hangar spaces, maintenance warehouses, pump house, wash rack, and other ancillary structures) are graded to drain northeast toward Runway 12-30 and its taxiway, which, through pipes and ditches, direct storm flows to the southeast and eventually to the detention basin (Figure 3.8-2) (LFA 2005). Runway 5-23 and its taxiway direct storm flows to the east-northeast, also to the detention basin (LFA 2005). Aside from the northern edge of the proposed airport related uses adjacent to Brushy Creek, drainage for the proposed aviation and non-aviation uses would be similarly directed toward the detention basin (Figure 3.8-2). Under normal circumstances, storm flow that is collected by the detention basin is either lost to evaporation and/or percolates into the underlying groundwater table. During extreme storm events (e.g., greater than a 10-year storm), when the detention basin reaches its holding capacity, it is designed to overflow into a ditch that flows north under Holey Road and then northeast to the lower-most reach of Brushy Creek near Byron Highway approximately 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Indian Slough (Google Earth 2018; LFA 2005; USGS 2018). Besides the detention basin and Brushy Creek, there are several other surface water features within the project site. A minor ephemeral drainage ditch flows northeasterly in the southeast corner of the site between Byron Hot Springs Road and North Bruns Way, appearing to terminate at a 4- acre irrigation and/or cattle pond (USGS 2018; Google Earth 2018). This area would remain as habitat management land. In addition, Canal 45 crosses the project site along the northeastern edge of Runway 12-30 (BBID 2017). Canal 45 is the northern extension of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and is supplied with water during the irrigation season through a pump station on the north side of the California Aqueduct (BBID 2017). A portion of this canal northwest of Byron Hot Springs Road to north of the airport detention basin is routed underground (LFA 2005; Google Earth 2018). In addition, a small 0.4-acre pond with an estimated 750,000-gallon capacity was constructed southeast of the intersection of Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road for the purpose of storing water for fire protection (Mead and Hunt 2013). Water for this pond is supplied by the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District through a pump located above the underground portion of Canal 45 (Mead and Hunt 2013; LFA 2005). 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-4 Clifton Court Forebay is located less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir is approximately 3 miles to the south, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 5 miles to the west. 3.8.1.3 Flood Hazard Flood zones identified on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). An SFHA is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1%-annual-chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. “Floodways” are areas within the SFHA that include the channel of a river/watercourse and adjacent land areas which in an unobstructed condition can discharge a 100-year flood/base flood without any increase in water surface elevations. The area outside the floodway but still within the 100-year floodplain can be obstructed without increasing the water surface elevation of a 100-year flood event more than 1 foot at any point. According to the FEMA, there is an SFHA associated with Brushy Creek (FEMA 2017). FEMA has mapped SFHAs on the project site on FIRM panel numbers 06013C0510G and 06013C0530G (effective March 21, 2017), shown in Figure 3.8-2. The flood zone widens significantly along Brushy Creek in an area located west of Runway 12-30 and west of Falcon Way, and spreads over low-lying areas between the two runways and south of Runway 5-23. The flood zone crosses Falcon Way near its intersection with Armstrong Road and crosses the northeastern end of Runway 5-23. Review of the flood zone shows that it is largely confined to areas of the project site that would be designated as habitat management or low intensity use. However, the flood zone intersects an area designated for airport-related uses just south of Armstrong Road, northwest of Runway 12-30 (FEMA 2017). Also shown in Figure 3.8-2 is a regulatory floodway2 along Brushy Creek, which intersects the northern edge of the proposed development area for airport-related uses. In addition, the 100-year flood hazard area terminates at the airport’s 15-acre detention basin located southeast of Runway 12-30 and east of Runway 5-23. East of the detention basin, a 500- year hazard area (also referred to as a 0.2%-annual-chance flood hazard) is mapped by FEMA. 3.8.1.4 Groundwater Resources The entire project site is located within the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin3 of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.15), as defined by DWR (DWR 2003). The Great Valley is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The Tracy Subbasin is defined by the areal extent of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sedimentary deposits that are bounded 2 FEMA regulates filling and construction in floodways to allow flood waters to be discharged without raising surface water levels beyond a designated height. 3 The California Department of Water Resources is currently reviewing a request to rename the Subbasin to the “East Contra Costa County Subbasin.” 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-5 by the Diablo Range on the west, Mokelumne and San Joaquin Rivers on the north, San Joaquin River to the east, and San Joaquin/Stanislaus County line on the south (DWR 2003). Water-bearing formations consist of continental deposits of Late Tertiary to Quaternary age, and the cumulative thickness of these deposits increases from a few hundred feet near the Coast Range foothills on the west to about 3,000 feet along the eastern margin of the basin (DWR 2003). Given the project site is on the western edge of the subbasin, it is likely that basin deposits are on the low end of the range of thickness. Annual precipitation within the subbasin ranges from about 11 inches in the south to about 16 inches in the north (DWR 200 3). DWR reports that groundwater yields in the Tracy Subbasin range from 500 to 3,000 gallons per minute when isolating the yields obtained by municipal wells. Limited current information is available regarding groundwater levels and quality on site and in the project area. However, DWR well completion reports and the USGS national water information system were reviewed for groundwater level information pertaining to the project site and its vicinity. Table 3.8-2 shows well completion report records available for each township and range section that intersects or shares a border with Byron Airport, including information on the average depth of wells and the range of depths. The well types are primarily domestic wells but include three larger production and/or irrigation wells. Based on review of well completion reports, groundwater levels in the local vicinity, as reported when the wells were first drilled, have historically varied between 10 and 100 feet below ground surface (DWR 2018a). However, the majority of records reviewed reported a groundwater level of between 10 and 30 feet below ground surface (DWR 2018a). Well yields, where recorded in well completion reports, were generally low. The on-site well used to supply the project site is reported to yield 1 gallon per minute or less (40–60 gallons per hour) (Mead and Hunt 2013). Except for seasonal variation resulting from recharge and pumping, the majority of water levels in wells have remained relatively stable over at least the last 10 years (DWR 2003). Long-term water level records for two off-site wells are available, one located 1 mile east of the site’s southeastern boundary adjacent to the California Aqueduct (State Well No. 01S03E25M999M), and one located about 0.75 miles north of the site’s northern boundary (State Well No. 01S03E15A001M) (DWR 2018b). Groundwater levels recorded at State Well No. 01S03E25M999M have generally been stable within the period of record from July 2014 to March 2018, and have ranged from 5 to 14 feet below ground surface (DWR 2018b). Groundwater levels recorded at State Well No. 01S03E15A001M have also been fairly stable within the period of record from October 1974 to April 2018, and have ranged from 2 to 12 feet below ground surface (DWR 2018b). As these wells are at lower elevations and located further away from the east flank of the Diablo Range, they have somewhat shallower groundwater levels than are likely to be encountered on the project site but are still likely to be representative of overall trends in groundwater table elevation. The groundwater elevation may fluctuate due to seasonal variation in rainfall, irrigation, tidal action, pumping rates, or other factors not evident at the time of exploration. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-6 Table 3.8-2 Well Completion Report Records on the Project Site and Vicinity Township and Range Section Domestic Well Count Average Well Depth, in Feet (Range) Production/Irrigation Well Count Average Well Depth, in Feet (Range) T01SR3E14 5 99 (60–172) 2 72 (70–75) T01SR3E22 4 106 (44–200) 0 — T01SR3E23 9 151 (40–278) 0 — T01SR3E25 3 169 (100–300) 1 80 (N/A) T01SR3E26 2 250 (250–250) 0 — T01SR3E27 1 165 (N/A) 0 — T01SR3E28 3 135 (100–200) 0 — Source: DWR 2018a. Note: — = no data available; N/A = not applicable. 3.8.1.5 Water Quality Perhaps due to the intermittent and ephemeral nature of the waterways located on site, very limited surface water quality data are available for the project site and its vicinity. Brushy Creek is not included in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of water quality impaired segments for California (SWRCB 2018) (Table 3.8-3). Being impaired (also known as “water quality- limited”) means that a water body is “not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards” without additional regulation. The CWA requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each impaired water body in the nation (described further below in Section 3.8.2). The TMDLs specify the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL may also include a plan for bringing an impaired water body within standards. Substantial water quality data are available for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, of which Brushy Creek and Old River are tributaries. Old River has the following impairments: low dissolved oxygen, chlorpyrifos, total dissolved solids (TDS), and electrical conductivity (SWRCB 2018). Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta waters are included on the CWA Section 303(d) list for the following constituents: toxicity, diazinon, DDT, Group A pesticides, electrical conductivity, TDS, mercury, and chlorpyrifos (SWRCB 2018). TMDLs have been approved for chlorpyrifos and diazinon, both of which are pesticides that are no longer used, as well as for mercury, which is present in waterways as a result of the state’s history with hydraulic gold mining. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-7 Table 3.8-3 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impairments in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Bodies Pollutant/Stressor Potential Sources TMDL Status Year1 Old River (San Joaquin River to Delta-Mendota Canal; in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waterways, Southern Portion) Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Sources; Hydromodification Expected 07/19/1909 Chlorpyrifos Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Approved 10/10/2007 Total Dissolved Solids Source Unknown Expected 07/13/1905 Electrical Conductivity Source Unknown Expected 07/15/1905 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waterways (Export Area) Toxicity Source Unknown Expected 07/11/1905 Diazinon Source Unknown Approved 10/10/2007 DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichlor oethane) Source Unknown Expected 07/03/1905 Group A Pesticides Source Unknown Expected 07/03/1905 Electrical Conductivity Source Unknown Expected 07/11/1905 Invasive Species Source Unknown Expected 07/11/1905 Mercury Abandoned Resource Extraction; Numerous Others Approved 10/20/2011 Chlorpyrifos Source Unknown Expected 07/19/1905 Source: SWRCB 2018. Notes: TMDL = total maximum daily load. 1 Dates per State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater quality is reported from several sources to be generally poor or undesirable. In general, the northern part of the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin, in which the project site is located, is characterized by a sodium water type and a wide range of anionic water types including bicarbonate, chloride, and mixed bicarbonate-chloride types (DWR 2003). Based on analyses of 36 water supply wells in the subbasin, TDS range from 210 to 7,800 milligram per liter and averages about 1,190 milligram per liter (DWR 2003). TDS is a general measure of water quality and high levels, generally above 500 milligram per liter, are considered undesirable and exceed secondary maximum contaminant levels. In addition, elevated levels of chloride, nitrate, and boron have been measured in the subbasin (DWR 2003). Mead and Hunt (2013) report that the on-site groundwater well was tested when originally constructed, prior to development, and had a TDS concentration of 13,000 milligram per liter, which is not suitable for potable use. This information indicates that groundwater for potable (drinking) use would require treatment to meet potable water quality standards. The on-site well used by the airport does not produce raw water of suitable quality for drinking, and currently can only be used for non-potable purposes (e.g., aircraft wash water and grounds maintenance). 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-8 3.8.1.6 Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis are earthquake-generated displacements of water resulting in a rise or mounding at the ocean surface that moves away from the center as a sea wave. All portions of the project site are located at least several hundred feet above sea level, within landlocked areas that are not adjacent to the ocean or other water bodies that would support the propagation of a tsunami. Seiches are large-scale waves of long wave length in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. They can be caused by earthquake shaking or a landslide along the shore of a lake or reservoir. There are no lakes or reservoirs on or directly adjacent to the project site. As these water bodies are 2 to 5 miles from the project site, the project site is not subject to risk from a seiche. 3.8.1.7 Dam Inundation As identified in Section 3.8.1.6, above, there are essentially three reservoirs in the project vicinity: Clifton Court Forebay less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir approximately 3 miles to the south, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir 5 miles to the west. The Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, maintains dam inundation maps that show areas that would be impacted by a dam failure. Los Vaqueros has the largest inundation of the three and would affect the communities of Byron and Discovery Bay. However, the project site is not within the inundation area (DWR 2021a). Clifton Forebay and Bethany Reservoir have smaller inundation areas which would not affect the project site (DWR 2021b). 3.8.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances The regulatory framework related to hydrology and water quality is extensive because it addresses issues related to the environment (i.e., maintaining high quality waters for water-dependent species and activities), public health (e.g., ensuring adequate drinking water quality), and public safety (e.g., avoiding flood damage). Impacts pertaining to provision of potable and non-potable water supplies, including applicable regulations, are addressed in Section 3.14, Utilities. Additional background and details on water supply, specifically compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 610, is provided in the Water Supply Assessment, included as Appendix I of this Environmental Impact Report. Federal Clean Water Act The CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality (33 USC 1251 et seq.). The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The CWA establishes basic 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-9 guidelines for regulating discharges of both point and non-point sources4 of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The CWA requires that states adopt water quality standards to protect public health, enhance the quality of water resources, and ensure implementation of the CWA. Relevant sections of the act are as follows: • Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the State of California is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and objectives. California is required to establish TMDLs for each pollutant/stressor. A TMDL defines how much of a specific pollutant/stressor a given water body can tolerate and still meet relevant water quality standards. Once a water body is placed on the Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, it remains on the list until a TMDL is adopted and the water quality standards are attained, or there is sufficient data to demonstrate that water quality standards have been met and delisting from the Section 303(d) list should take place. The water quality impairments relevant to the project are shown in Table 3.8-3, and the basin planning process that establishes beneficial uses and associated water quality objectives are further described under the heading Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin below. • Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the CWA. This process is known as the Water Quality Certification/waste discharge requirements (WDRs) process. For projects in southeastern Contra Costa County (County), the Central Valley RWQCB issues CWA Section 401 permits. • Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs, who have several programs that implement individual and general permits related to construction activit ies, stormwater runoff quality, and various kinds of non-stormwater discharges. • Section 404 (Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States) establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is jointly administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Environmental Impact Report Section 3.3, Biological Resources, addresses this impact/requirement in greater detail. 4 Point source discharges are those emanating from a pipe or discrete location/process, such as an industrial proce ss or wastewater discharge. Non-point source pollutants are those that originate from numerous diffuse sources and land uses, and which can accumulate in stormwater runoff or in groundwater. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-10 Numerous agencies have responsib ilities for administration and enforcement of the CWA. At the federal level this includes the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the major federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. At the state level, with the exception of tribal lands, the California EPA and its sub -agencies, including the SWRCB, have been delegated primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the certain provisions of the CWA in California. At the l ocal level, the Central Valley RWQCB and the County have both enforcement and implementation responsibilities under the CWA. Federal Antidegradation Policy The federal Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12) is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy requires states to develop statewide antidegradation policies and identify methods for implementing them. State antidegradation policies and implementation measures must include the following provisions: (1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected; (2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development; and (3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected. State permitting actions must be consistent with the federal Antidegradation Policy. National Flood Insurance Act The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program to provide flood insurance within communities that would adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future flood losses. The act also required the identification of all floodplain areas within the United States and establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. FEMA is the primary agency responsible for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing FIRMs that delineate the areas of known special flood hazards and their risk applicable to the community. FEMA FIRMs are used as part of state and community floodplain management regulations, as well as for insurers to calculate flood insurance premiums. They are also used for emergency management, land use and water resources planning, and by federal agencies. It is the responsibility of state and local agencies to implement regulations, ordinances, and policies in compliance with FEMA requirements to adequately address floodplain management issues and attempt to prevent loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, and other adverse effects due to flooding. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-11 The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 resulted in major changes to the National Flood Insurance Program . The act provides tools to make the National Flood Insurance Program more effective in achieving its goals of reducing the risk of flood damag e to properties and reducing federal expenditures for uninsured properties damaged by flood. The act requires mitigation insurance and establishes a grant program for state and community flood mitigation planning projects. State Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (codified in the California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.) is the primary water quality control law for California. Whereas the CWA applies to all waters of the United States, the Porter–Cologne Act applies to waters of the state,5 which includes isolated wetlands and groundwater in addition to federal waters. The act requires a Report of Waste Discharge for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the state. California Water Code Section 13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer system, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, file a Report of Waste Discharge with the applicable RWQCB. For discharges directly to surface water (waters of the United States), an NPDES permit is requir ed, which is issued under both state and federal law; for other types of discharges, such as waste discharges to land (e.g., spoils disposal and storage), erosion from soil disturbance, or discharges to waters of the state (e.g., groundwater and isolated wetlands), WDRs are required and are issued exclusively under state law. WDRs typically require many of the same best management practices (BMPs) and pollution control technologies as are required by NPDES-derived permits. California Antidegradation Policy The California Antidegradation Policy, otherwise known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in California, was adopted by the SWRCB (State Board Resolution No. 68-16) in 1968. Unlike the federal Antidegradation Policy, the California Antidegradation Policy applies to all waters of the state, not just surface waters. The policy requires that, with limited exceptions, whenever the existing quality of a water body is better than the quality established in individual basin plans, such high-quality water must be maintained and discharges to that water body must not unreasonably affect any present or anticipated beneficial use of the water resource. As stated in the Basin Plan, “discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or 5 “Waters of the state” are defined in the Porter–Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code Section 13050[e]). 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-12 nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State” (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for protection of the beneficial uses of waters draining to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters addressed through the plan (California Water Code Sections 13240–13247) (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). The most water quality–sensitive beneficial uses applicable to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta include water contact recreation, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, and migration and spawning. The beneficial uses that have the potential to be affected by the project are shown in Table 3.8-4, and definitions for acronyms are provided in Table 3.8-5. The Basin Plan also lists groundwater quality objectives for bacteria, chemical constituents, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, tastes and odors, and toxicity. Table 3.8-4 Beneficial Uses of Waters within the Study Area Waterbody MUNa AGRa INDa PROa POWa REC-1a,b REC-2a WARMa COLDa MIGRa SPWNa WILDa NAVa COMMa,c North Diablo Range Hydrologic Unit (HU 543.00) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ San Joaquin Delta Hydrologic Unit (HU 544.00) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Source: Table II-1 of the Basin Plan (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). Notes: a Refer to Table 3.8-5 for definitions of abbreviations. b Water contact recreation designation excludes canoeing and rafting uses, with the implication that certain flows are required for this beneficial use. c COMM is a designated beneficial use for the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and Yolo Bypass waterways only and not any tributari es to the listed waterways or portions of the listed waterways outside of the legal Delta boundary unless specifically designated. ✓ = Existing Beneficial Uses. Table 3.8-5 Definitions of Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters Abbreviation Beneficial Use Description MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems, including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. AGR Agricultural Supply Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing. IND Industrial Service Supply Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-13 Table 3.8-5 Definitions of Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters Abbreviation Beneficial Use Description PRO Industrial Process Supply Industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality. POW Hydropower Generation Use of water for hydropower generation. GWRa Groundwater Recharge Uses of water for natural or artificial recharge or groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. FRSHa Freshwater Replenishment Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or quality. REC-1 Water Contact Recreation Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white-water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs. REC-2 Non-contact Water Recreation Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. COLD Cold Freshwater Habitat Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. WILD Wildlife Habitat Uses of water that support terrestrial or wetland ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats or wetlands, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources. RAREa Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered. SPWN Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish. NAV Navigation Uses of water for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, military, or commercial vessels. COMM Commercial and Sport Fishing Uses of water for commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms, including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes. Source: Central Valley RWQCB 2015. Notes: a Surface waters with the beneficial uses of Groundwater Recharge (GWR), Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH), and Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species (RARE) have not been identified in the Basin Plan. Surface waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Ri ver Basins falling within these beneficial use categories will be identified in the future as part of the continuous planning process to be conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-14 General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits and Waste Discharge Requirements To enable efficient permitting under both the CWA and the Porter–Cologne Act, the SWRCB and the RWQCBs run permit programs that group similar types of activities that have similar threats to water quality. These general permit programs include the Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)6 Permit, the construction general permit, the industrial general permit (IGP), and other general permits for low-threat discharges. The construction and industrial stormwater programs are administered by the SWRCB, while the Phase I MS4 Permit and other general WDRs are administered by the Central Valley RWQCB. Point-source discharges or other activities that threaten water quality that are not covered under a general permit must seek individual NPDES permits and/or WDRs, depending on the type, location, and destination of the discharge. For these types of discharges, the initial step in the process is to submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Central Valley RWQCB, who then determines the appropriate permitting pathway. Table 3.8-6 lists the permits related to water quality that would apply to certain actions conducted under the project, each of which is further described below. Table 3.8-6 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals Program/Activity Order Number/ NPDES Number Permit Name Affected Area/ Applicable Activity Construction Stormwater Program SWRCB Water Quality Order 2009-0009- DWQ/CAS000002, as amended NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Statewide/construction- related land disturbance of >1 acre. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program Central Valley RWRCB Water Quality Order No. R5- 2010-0102 East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit New development or redevelopment that creates and/or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Industrial General Permit SWRCB Order No. 2014- 0057-DWQ NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities Projects categorized as industrial activity, pursuant to Attachment A of the permit. Temporary/Low Volume Dewatering SWRCB Order No. 2003- 0003-DWQ/Central Valley RWQCB Order No. R5- 2013-0074/CAG995001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality Central Valley Note: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6 An MS4 is defined in as a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, or storm drains) that serve medium and large cities or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-15 Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as Amended). For stormwater discharges associated with construction activity in the State of California, the SWRCB has adopted the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) to avoid and minimize water quality impacts attributable to such activities. The Construction General Permit applies to all projects in which construction activity disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling and excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would specify water quality BMPs designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction site. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit, and the SWPPP must be prepared and implemented by qualified individuals as defined by the SWRCB. To receive coverage under the Construction General Permit, the project proponent must submit a Notice of Intent and permit registration documents to the SWRCB. Permit registration documents include completing a construction site risk assessment to determine appropriate coverage level; detailed site maps showing disturbance area, drainage area, and BMP types/locations; the SWPPP; and, where applicable, post-construction water balance calculations and active treatment systems design documentation. East Contra Costa County MS4 Permit, Provision C.3 Requirements (SWRCB Order No. R5-2010-0102, as Amended). Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in eastern Contra Costa County are regulated under the East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit (MS4 Permit), Order No. R5-2010-0102, NPDES Permit No. CAS083313, adopted September 23, 2010. The most relevant requirement that pertains to the project is Provision C.3. It should also be noted that the neighboring MS4 permit covering all Bay Area counties within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB is expected to be amended in the near future to include the portions of eastern Contra Costa County currently within the administrative boundaries of the Central Valley RWQCB (Contra Costa Clean Water Program 2018). The current east Contra Costa County MS4 Permit remains in effect until that occurs. Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. This provision applies to a development or redevelopment project that would create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface or 5,000 square feet for auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots. Currently, the County requires project proponents regulated under the MS4 Permit to install hydrodynamic devices, or other BMPs, to remove pollutants such as floating liquids and 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-16 solids, trash and debris, and coarse sediment from stormwater runoff, and to show the locations of such controls on plans submitted with the building permit application. In addition, the County requires implementation of low-impact development (LID) strategies, preventive source controls, and additional stormwater treatment measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge of certain industrial projects, as well as prevention of increase in runoff flows. The MS4 Permit requires that LID methods shall be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. The required stormwater treatment systems must be designed according to the following hydraulic sizing criteria: • Volume Hydraulic Design Basis – Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to (a) the maximized stormwater capture volume for the area, on the basis of historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. 23/American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175–178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or (b) the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80% or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Section 5 of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment (2003), using local rainfall data; • Flow Hydraulic Design Basis – Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity shall be sized to treat (a) 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; (b) the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or (c) the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity; or • Combination Flow and Volume Design Basis – Treatment systems that use a combination of flow and volume capacity shall be sized to treat at least 80% of the total runoff over the life of the project, using local rainfall data. Projects must treat 100% of runoff (based on the selected calculation described above) with LID treatment measures that include harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment (biotreatment may only be used if the other options are infeasible). Biotreatment areas shall be designed to have a long-term infiltration rate of 5 to 10 inches per hour. The County also requires development projects to incorporate the following source control and site design measures: • Minimize stormwater pollutants of concern through measures that may include plumbing dumpster drips from covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures to the sanitary sewer; • Properly design covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas and loading docks; 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-17 • Properly design trash storage areas; • Minimize stormwater runoff by implementing one or more site design measures, which include directing roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse, or directing roof runoff to vegetated areas. The County enforces the requirements of the MS4 Permit through its development review and permitting process, and thus requires regulated projects to submit a Storm Water Control Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The Storm Water Control Plan is a separate document from the SWPPP. Industrial General Permit (SWRCB Order 2014-0057-DWQ, as Amended). In California, stormwater discharges from industrial facilities are covered under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (i.e., the IGP). The IGP is issued by the SWRCB and implemented and enforced by the nine RWQCBs. The IGP requires implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology. The most recent IGP (SWRCB Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ) was adopted April 1, 2014, and became effective on July 1, 2015; it replaces the previous 1997 statewide permit for industrial stormwater (SWRCB Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ). The IGP requires stormwater dischargers to eliminate unauthorized non -stormwater discharges, develop and implement SWPPPs , implement BMPs, conduct monitoring, compare monitoring results to numeric action levels , perform appropriate exceedance response actions when numeric action levels are exceeded , and certify and submit all permit registration documents. Changes under the new IGP compared to the IGP issue d in 1997 are that stormwater dischargers are required to implement minimum BMPs , electronically file all permit registration documents via the SWRCB’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System , comply with new training expectations and roles for qualified industrial stormwater practitioners , sample to detect exceedance of annual and instantaneous numeric action levels , develop and implement exceedance response actions if annual or instantaneous numeric action levels are exceeded , monitor for parameters listed under CWA Section 303(d), design treatment control BMPs for flow- and volume-based criteria, and understand new criteria, sampling protocols, and sampling frequency for qualifying storm events. The new general order also defines desig n storm standards for treatment control BMPs, qualifying storm events, and sampling protocols to follow during a design storm event. As a covered facility, Byron Airport is currently enrolled in the IGP, under waste discharge identification number 5S07I002606. It is currently operating under an industrial SWPPP and submits reports to the SWRCB on an annual basis documenting its compliance activities (ACMG 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-18 2016). The airport’s SWPPP is a living document and is updated as needed in concert with RWQCB requirements and/or changes to facility activities and operations (ACMG 2016). During qualifying storm events, when discharges are made to the site’s outfall, the airport collects samples of the flow for testing so that it can verify to the SWRCB that it is not contributing to water quality impairments or violations of Basin Plan objectives. The annual report also serves to continually update descriptions of industrial materials and storage/containment devices, and documents activities undertaken by the airport to keep stormwater facilities and pollution controls working effectively. Review of the SWRCB’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System indicates that the facility has never been in violation of permit conditions since adoption of the 2014 IGP (SWRCB 2019). General Order for Dewatering and Other Low-Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (Central Valley RWQCB Order R5-2013-0074, as Amended). The Central Valley RWQCB has adopted a general NPDES permit for short-term discharges of small volumes of wastewater from certain construction-related activities. Discharges may be covered by the permit provided they are either (1) 4 months or less in duration or (2) the average dry weather discharge does not exceed 0.25 million gallons per day. Construction dewatering and miscellaneous dewatering/low-threat discharges are among the types of discharges that may be covered by the permit. To receive coverage under this general permit, the discharger must submit a Notice of Intent to the RWQCB and describe the activity with sufficient detail to demonstrate that discharge would comply with the discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and receiving water limitations outlined in the order. In no case shall the discharge impair beneficial uses or violate water quality standards or cause a possible nuisance condition. This permit would be required in the event dewatering discharges would be made to a creek, such as might be necessary during foundation excavations, utility trenching, or other site construction activities. If the discharge is made to land (e.g., to a temporary infiltration/percolation basin on site) the project proponent would need to apply for coverage under the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (SWRCB Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or equivalent. The intent and procedures for coverage under this permit are similar as described above. California Sustainable Groundwater Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is a package of three bills (Assembly Bill [AB] 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319) that provides local agencies with a framework for managing groundwater basins in a sustainable manner. The SGMA establishes minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management, roles and responsibilities for local agencies that manage groundwater resources, and priorities and timelines to achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adoption of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Central to the SGMA are 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-19 the identification of critically over-drafted basins, prioritization of groundwater basins, establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), and preparation and implementation of GSPs for medium-priority, high-priority, and critically over-drafted basins. GSAs must be formed by June 30, 2017. GSPs must consider all beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, as well as include measurable objectives and interim milestones that ensure basin sustainability. A basin may be managed by a single GSP or multiple coordinated GSPs. At the state level, DWR has the primary role in the implementation, administration, and oversight of the SGMA, with the SWRCB stepping in should a local agency be found to not be managing groundwater in a sustainable manner. DWR recently approved regulations and guidelines for implementation of the SGMA. The project site intersects the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-22.15), which is a medium priority basin and will eventually be managed under a GSP. The County, the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District are the GSAs within the Contra Costa County portion of the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin. All seven GSAs have signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to prepare a single GSP for the groundwater basin within the County. The GSP must be submitted to DWR by January 31, 2022. Groundwater Management Act Groundwater management is outlined in the California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.75, Chapters 1–5, Sections 10750 through 10755.4. The Groundwater Management Act was first introduced in 1992 as AB 3030 and has since been modified by SB 1938 in 2002 and AB 359 in 2011. These significant pieces of legislation establish, among other things, specific procedures on how Groundwater Management Plans (GWMPs) are to be developed and adopted by local agencies. The intent of the Groundwater Management Act is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing a GWMP. • Assembly Bill 3030: AB 3030 was signed into law in 1992 and provides a systematic procedure for a local agency to develop a GWMP. • Senate Bill 1938: SB 1938, signed into law in 2002, modified the Groundwater Management Act by requiring any public agency seeking state funds administered through DWR for the construction of groundwater projects to prepare and implement a GWMP with specified required components. The SB 1938 requirements apply not just to management areas that overlie Bulletin 118–defined groundwater basins, but to those agencies that have groundwater management outside of those basins. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-20 • Assembly Bill 359: AB 359, signed into law in 2011, modified the Groundwater Management Act by requiring public agencies to prepare and implement a GWMP with an additional required component that is focused on identifying groundwater recharge areas. The AB 359 legislation also includes several plan adoption procedural changes, requires GWMPs to be submitted to DWR, and requires DWR to provide public access to this information. There are no AB 359, SB 1938, or AB 3030 GWMPs applicable to the project site. Local Contra Costa County General Plan The County General Plan contains goals and policies that are applicable to all development projects within the County’s unincorporated areas. The Public Facilities/Services (Chapter 7), Conservation (Chapter 8), and Safety (Chapter 10) Elements identify numerous goals and policies related to drainage, flood control, and water quality that include but are not limited to watershed management, protection of surface and subsurface water supplies, requirements for drainage facilities, risk management in relation to flood control, and control of non-point sources of water pollution (Contra Costa County 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Public Facilities/Services Element Policy 7-23 The County shall cooperate with other regulatory agencies to control point and non-point water pollution sources to protect adopted beneficial uses of water. Policy 7-26 The need for water system improvements shall be reduced by encouraging new development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use. Policy 7-45 On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no significant increase in peak flows occurs compared to the site’s pre-development condition, unless the Planning Agency determines that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts expected from the development or the project in implementing an adopted drainage plan. Policy 7-46 Regional detention basins shall be favored over smaller, on-site detention basins. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-21 Conservation Element Policy 8-23 Runoff of pollutants and siltation into marsh and wetland areas from outfalls serving nearby urban development shall be discouraged. Where permitted, development plans shall be designed in such a manner that no such pollutants and siltation will significantly adversely affect the value or function of wetlands. Policy 8-76 Preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resources. Policy 8-77 Ensure that land uses in rural areas be consistent with the availability of groundwater resources. Policy 8-80 Support improvements to flood control facilities that provide opportunities for stormwater detention and groundwater recharge. Policy 8-81 Where feasible, existing and natural waterways shall be protected and preserved in their natural state, and channels which are already modified shall be restored. Policy 8-89 The natural function of riparian corridors and water channels shall be restored and maintained to reduce flooding, convey stormwater flows, and improve water quality. Policy 8-91 Existing native riparian habitat shall be preserved and enhanced by new development unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat for flood control or other public purposes. Policy 8-92 On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no increase in peak flows occurs relative to the site’s pre- development condition, unless the Planning Agency determines that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts. Policy 8-94 Setback areas shall be provided along natural creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization. The setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. Policy 8-96 Grading, filling , and construction activity near watercourses shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or thermal pollution. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-22 Safety Element Policy 10-38 Flood-proofing of structures shall be required in any area subject to flooding; this shall occur both adjacent to watercourses as well as in the Delta or along the waterfront. Policy 10-54 New development and substantial improvements or upgrades in the 100- and 500-year flood hazard zones shall be constructed in accordance with applicable County, state, and federal regulations including compliance with the minimum standards of FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to avoid or minimize the risk of flood damage. Contra Costa County Municipal Code Section 1014 – Stormwater M anagement and Discharge Control The purpose of County Municipal Code Section 1014 is to eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, the discharge of pollutants into local watercourses and municipal storm drain systems. Section 1014 requires that all projects creating and/or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet for auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots, provide treatment of stormwater runoff generated by the project. Projects creating and/or redeveloping impervious surface in excess of 1 acre are required to not only treat stormwater runoff, but also provide hydrograph modification management (resulting in post- project stormwater runoff flow rates and durations effectively matching the estimated pre-project levels). This section of the County Municipal Code, as well as the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 1014), is intended to achieve compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s MS4 NPDES Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB, as described in detail above. Contra Costa County Municipal Code Chapter 82-28 – Floodplain Management Ordinance The Floodplain Management Ordinance applies to all FEMA-designated SFHAs within the County’s jurisdiction. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote public health and safety and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. This is accomplished through provisions designed to protect human life and property; minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone, and sewer lines, and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; minimize public expenditure on flood projects; and provide information to the public regarding SFHAs. The ordinance establishes the requirement for a floodplain permit, which must be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, or commencement of development, on any 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-23 property within any area of special flood hazards, and also establishes construction standards pertaining to structure anchoring, construction materials and methods, elevation above the base flood height, and flood proofing. Contra Costa County Drainage Ordinances A drainage permit under Division 914 and/or Division 1010, Drainage, of the County Ordinance Code would be required for installation of culverts proposed as part of the project, and within existing drainage ditches and tributaries to Brushy Creek. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits the impairment or impedance of the natural flow of stormwaters; direct physical impacts to watercourses (e.g., through grading, excavation, filling, and/or development); or the construction, alteration, or repair of a drainage structure, facility, or channel without first obtaining a permit from the public works department. Furthermore, Division 914 establishes on-site and off- site collect and convey requirements that must be met before development approvals are granted. Applicants are required to substantiate that both on-site and off-site drainage facilities have adequate capacity to convey specified design storm events, that the capacity and stability of natural watercourses are adequately protected, and that environmentally sensitive flow velocity attenuation techniques approved by the public works department are implemented. Detention basins must be approved by the public works department and are required to detain the 100 -year storm runoff. 3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s impacts to hydrology and water quality are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact related to hydrology and water quality would occur if a project would: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. 2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-24 (c) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows. 4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. 5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 3.8.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.8-1. The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less than Significant) Impacts to water quality through exceedance of water quality standards, non-conformance with WDRs, or by other means can potentially result from the short-term effects of construction activity (e.g., erosion and sedimentation due to land disturbances, uncontained material and equipment storage areas, improper handling of hazardous materials) and the long-term effects of landscaping, circulation improvements, utility infrastructure, and structural designs (e.g., alteration of drainage patterns, use/handling of hazardous materials, and/or increases in impervious surfaces). Construction Impacts Construction period activities could generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or WDRs, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of receiving waters, which in most cases consist of the underlying groundwater, but in extreme cases such as a 10-year flood or greater, could consist of Brushy Creek and downstream waters. In areas of active construction, soil erosion may result in discharges of sediment-laden stormwater runoff into the existing or proposed stormwater drainage system, if not properly controlled. Without proper controls, this could contribute to degradation of downstream water quality and impairment of the beneficial uses identified in Section 3.8.2. Sediment can also be a carrier for other pollutants, such as heavy metals, nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, fuels, and other petroleum products. In addition to sediment, other pollutants associated with the various phases of construction, such as trash, paint, solvents, sanitary waste from portable restrooms, and concrete curing compounds, can discharge into and impair receiving waters if released during construction. As part of the permitting and approval of individual uses proposed by the project, project proponents would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP in accordance with SWRCB and Central Valley RWQCB requirements (as described in Section 3.8.2). The SWPPP must specify the location, type, 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-25 and maintenance requirements for BMPs necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying construction-related pollutants into nearby receiving waters (in this case, the southern part of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta). BMPs must be implemented to address potential release of fuels, oil, and/or lubricants from construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., drip pans, secondary containment, washing stations); release of sediment from material stockpiles and other construction-related excavations (e.g., sediment barriers, soil binders); and other construction-related activities with the potential to adversely affect water quality. The number, type, location, and maintenance requirements of BMPs to be implemented as part of the SWPPP depend on site-specific risk factors such as soil erosivity factors, construction season/duration, and receiving water sensitivity. SWPPPs must be developed and implemented by a Construction General Permit Qualified SWPPP Developer/Qualified SWPPP Practitioner. The Qualified SWPPP Developer/Qualified SWPPP Practitioner is tasked with determining the receiving water risks (including beneficial uses and CWA Section 303d impairments), monitoring site activities that could pose risks to water quality, and developing a comprehensive strategy to control construction-related pollutant loads in site runoff. Minimum standard BMPs include erosion and sediment controls; site management/housekeeping/waste management; management of non-stormwater discharges; run- on and runoff controls; and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. A rain event action plan must also be prepared by the Qualified SWPPP Developer/Qualified SWPPP Practitioner to outline the procedures to prepare the construction site for rain events and minimize the potential release of construction-related contaminants. The following list includes examples of treatment control BMPs to employ during construction, although these would vary based on the nature of construction activities, the characteristics of the site, and the existing impairments applicable to receiving waters (these features would appear as notes on final design plans): • Silt fences installed along limits of work and/or the construction site • Stockpile containment (e.g., visqueen, fiber rolls, gravel bags) • Exposed soil stabilization structures (e.g., fiber matrix on slopes and construction access stabilization mechanisms) • Street sweeping • Tire washes for equipment • Runoff control devices (e.g., drainage swales, gravel bag barriers/chevrons, velocity check dams) shall be used during construction phases conducted during the rainy season. • Drainage system inlet protection • Wind erosion (dust) controls 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-26 • Tracking controls • Prevention of fluid leaks (inspections and drip pans) from vehicles • Dewatering operations best practices • Materials pollution management • Proper waste management • Regular inspections and maintenance of BMPs The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP are sufficient to address a project’s potential to violate water quality standards or WDRs. Implementation of SWRCB and Central Valley RWQCB requirements (CWA NPDES Program and Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act WDRs) are enforced by the County through Division 1014 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) of the County Ordinance Code. In addition to stormwater runoff, construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which, if not properly controlled, can be deposited in nearby waters. Note that this potential impact is addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality; actions to mitigate adverse effects on air quality would likewise mitigate potential adverse effects on water quality from atmospheric deposition. Therefore, the construction-related impact of the project on water quality would be less than significant because existing permitting requirements are sufficient to meet Basin Plan objectives and prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses. Operational Impacts The project would involve construction of impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and parking lots, upon which pollutants such as dust/sediment, vehicle and aircraft fluids, oil, and grease could accumulate and come into contact with rain and stormwater runoff, which could discharge into the airport’s stormwater drainage system. The aviation and non-aviation uses (e.g., retail, service, warehouse and distribution, and light manufacturing uses) proposed are typically associated with a high coverage of impervious surfaces and can involve the storage/management of hazardous materials. Pollutants could be generated from loading, delivery, and trash pick-up areas and/or the use of open storage areas to store bulk materials, depending on the specific uses ultimately developed in the aviation and non-aviation areas. If not properly controlled, the discharge of polluted stormwater runoff could adversely affect water quality and the beneficial uses of receiving waters. Byron Airport is currently enrolled in the IGP (SWRCB Order No. 2014 -0057-DWQ) under waste discharge identification number 5S07I002606. “Aircraft and aircraft -related activities” and “transportation with vehicle maintenance” facilities are two of the many categories of industrial activities covered by the IGP, which is designed to require project proponents to address industry- and site-specific threats to water quality. The IGP requires permittees to 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-27 identify, describe, and assess project -specific pollutant sources; implement minimum and advanced BMPs designed for those pollutant sources and protective of receiving wat ers; and conduct long -term monitoring and reporting to demonstrate the objectives of the IGP are being met and the quality of receiving waters is not being degraded. Performance standards for BMPs specified in the IGP include use of best available technolo gy economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology to reduce or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non -stormwater discharges; the BMPs must be designed to meet discharge prohibitions, effluent and receivin g water limitations, TMDLs, and water quality objectives in the Basin Plan. BMPs could include active treatment systems (e.g., pre -settlement tank and multiple filtration systems, as necessary) that target industry - and site-specific pollutants prior to di scharge, as well as stormwater effluent testing during each qualifying rainfall event. Byron Airport is currently operating under an industrial SWPPP and submits reports to the SWRCB on an annual basis documenting its compliance activities (ACMG 2016). The airport’s SWPPP is a living document and is updated as needed in concert with RWQCB requirements and/or changes to facility activities and operations (ACMG 2016). During qualifying storm events, when discharges are made to the site’s outfall, the airport collects samples of the flow for testing so that it can verify to the SWRCB that it is not contributing to water quality impairments or violations of Basin Plan objectives. The annual report also serves to continually update descriptions of industrial materials and storage/containment devices, and documents activities undertaken by the airport to keep stormwater facilities and pollution controls working effectively. Review of the SWRCB’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System indicates that the facility has never been in violation of permit conditions since adoption of the 2014 IGP (SWRCB 2019). The existing uses would continue to operate under the industrial SWPPP in effect for the Byron Airport, which would continue to be amended as required. Future aviation uses or non-aviation uses that are covered facilities under the IGP would either be folded into the existing IGP coverage through a SWPPP amendment or would be required to obtain coverage under a separate waste discharge identification number, depending on arrangement between landowner and lessee. For leases that would qualify as an industrial facility under the general permit, the project proponent would not be authorized to construct and operate the facility without first obtaining coverage under the IGP, which is accomplished by submitting to the Central Valley RWQCB all required permit registration documents, including a Notice of Intent and an Industrial SWPPP. The Industrial SWPPP would contain, at a minimum, (1) the facility name and contact information, (2) a site map, (3) a list of industrial materials handled, (4/5) a description and assessment of pollutant sources, (6) minimum BMPs, (7) advanced BMPs, where applicable, (8) a monitoring and implementation plan, (9) an annual comprehensive facility compliance evaluation, and (10) the date that the SWPPP was initially prepared and the date of each SWPPP amendment, where applicable. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-28 Future development of airport-related uses not defined as a covered facility under the IGP would require compliance with the east Contra Costa County MS4 Permit (Order No. R5-2010-0102), as described in Section 3.8.2. Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. Currently, the County requires project proponents to install hydrodynamic devices or incorporate other BMPs to remove pollutants, such as floating liquids and solids, trash and debris, and coarse sediment, from stormwater runoff and to show the locations of such controls on plans submitted with the development application (when a discretionary permit is required) and/or building permit application. In addition, the County requires implementation of LID strategies, preventative source controls, and additional stormwater treatment measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge of certain industrial projects, as well as to prevent of an increase in runoff flows. Additional details on these requirements are provided in Section 3.8.2. Required compliance with the IGP and the east Contra Costa County MS4 Permit, as applicable, would effectively avoid or substantially reduce the project’s potential to violate water quality standards or WDRs or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality . Therefore, the impact of operation and maintenance of the project on water quality would be less than significant . Impacts of the project regarding drainage and runoff alterations are addressed under Impact 3.8 -3. Impact 3.8-2. The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant) As discussed in Section 3.8.1, Existing Conditions, the proposed project is located in the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.15), as defined by the DWR (2003). The Tracy Groundwater Subbasin is a medium priority basin and will eventually be managed under a GSP. DWR’s priority rating is based on estimates of population density, anticipated growth, well density, the amount of irrigated agriculture, the degree to which water demands are met from wells (versus surface water), and the existence of documented impacts (e.g., overdraft) (DWR 2014). More than 80% of the municipal and agricultural water demands within the subbasin are served by surface water supplies, primarily from the California Aqueduct, and, as discussed in Section 3.8.1, groundwater levels have been generally stable in the past several decades (DWR 2014). The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and the County, as part of the GSA for the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin, will have joint responsibility for preparing and implementing a GSP for the basin by 2022. However, there is currently no GWMP currently adopted for the part of the basin which the proposed project overlies (e.g., AB 359, SB 1938, or AB 3030 GWMPs). 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-29 The Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed project estimates that the construction water demand for the proposed project is 31 acre-feet spread out over a 10-year build-out period, equivalent to an average of 3.1 acre-feet per year (Appendix I). Operations and maintenance activities for the proposed project would require a water demand that would ramp up to approximately 36 acre-feet per year by the end of the 10-year build-out period (Appendix I). Due to low yield and poor water quality, groundwater is unlikely to be utilized to meet the water demands of the project; instead, the water demands are anticipated to be met by surface water imports from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and/or the Town of Discovery Bay (Appendix I). However, the proposed project would retain the capability to either construct a new well or redevelop its existing well for a backup or emergency source of water. Should groundwater be utilized to meet some or all of the proposed project’s water demands, the impacts on aquifer depletion and/or the local lowering of the groundwater table would be minimal. This is because there are no municipal water wells in the region surrounding the proposed project, and the existing domestic and irrigation wells in the area surrounding the project are a sufficient distance away to avoid experiencing pumping interference (DWR 2018a, 2018b). Average groundwater use in the Tracy Subbasin is estimated to be between 0.03 and 0.1 acre-feet/acre (DWR 2014). Given the Byron Airport is approximately 1,319 acres in size, the maximum water demand of the proposed project, if it were to come entirely from the groundwater aquifer (which is not anticipated), would represent a water use of 0.03 acre-feet/acre, which is consistent with the lower end of the range of the average groundwater use in the Tracy Subbasin. Given this level of groundwater pumping has not produced declining groundwater levels, it would not have substantial adverse impacts with regard to aquifer depletion. Furthermore, the proposed project would have minimal impacts with respect to groundwater recharge. Although planned uses are likely to include a substantial amount of impervious surfaces, which would locally prevent infiltration, stormflows would be diverted to the site’s stormwater detention basin, where the accumulated flow would be available for infiltration. Under existing conditions, as described in Section 3.5, Geology and Soils, the project site contains soils that are not naturally conducive to recharge, since they contain significant amount of clay and therefore have hydrologic soil group ratings of C and D (i.e., slowly to very slowly permeable). Furthermore, compliance with the IGP and MS4 Permit (described under Impact 3.8-1) would include BMPs and LID strategies to manage runoff and water quality, which could include swales and/or infiltration basins which would collect runoff from impervious areas. While impervious surfaces would result in localized decreases in infiltration, the runoff volume from impervious surfaces would be directed to locations (e.g., water quality BMPs and/or detention basin) where it could infiltrate into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Therefore, the project would not significantly change the overall volume of the recharge to the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-30 For these reasons, the impacts of the proposed project on the sustainable management of groundwater (e.g., aquifer depletion, well interference, and groundwater recharge) would be less than significant. Impact 3.8-3. 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (c)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows. (Potentially Significant) Drainage patterns of the site can be altered through several means, including significant grading (i.e., alteration of topography), whereby the natural drainage areas of the site are altered, or through addition of impervious surfaces, which can increase the rate and volume of storm runoff, thereby increasing the magnitude and accelerating the arrival time of peak flows in downstream waterways. The project would not substantially alter the site’s topography because the areas planned for the aviation and non-aviation uses are located on previously graded pads or are otherwise on land that is already relatively flat. Currently undeveloped areas planned for the aviation and non-aviation uses have average slopes of 1.5% or less (Google Earth 2018). Minor, localized changes in topography may occur as development of these areas proceeds; however, these changes would not be substantial enough to alter the pre-existing watershed boundaries or the general drainage pattern shown in Figure 3.8-2. Prior to and at full build-out, the project would involve substantial increases in the amount of impervious surfaces, which has the potential to substantially increase the rate and volume of storm runoff during peak storm events without adequate measures to detain, retain, or slow the increased flows. The distribution and extent of impervious surfaces to be constructed is not known precisely at this time but would occur in a 70-acre area planned for non-aviation uses (46.6 acres) and the aviation area (23.5 acres). At full build-out, the total building footprint for all new uses is anticipated to be approximately 914,000 square feet (or 21 acres). Though some of this area may consist of landscaping or water quality control BMPs (e.g., swales, gravel, or pervious pavement), the majority of the building footprint is expected to consist of impervious surfaces, given the anticipated uses (e.g., typically 80% to 90% of the building footprint). The following subsections examine the impacts that altered flow regimes would have on erosion or siltation, on- or off-site flooding, the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the impedance or redirection of flood flows. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-31 Erosion and Siltation Alteration in the flow regime (i.e., increases in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff) can increase erosion and siltation beyond naturally occurring levels within receiving waters. The primary receiving waters for the project site consist of Brushy Creek (shown in Figure 3.8-1) and the existing detention basin (shown in Figure 3.8-2). The majority of the project site drains to the detention basin, which means these areas would not have an impact on sedimentation and siltation within Brushy Creek, except under an extreme storm scenario when the detention basin reaches its holding capacity. At that point, the basin as currently constructed would release excess storm flow into a ditch that flows north under Holey Road and then northeast to the lower-most reach of Brushy Creek near Byron Highway, about 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Indian Slough. Erosion and siltation are water quality concerns that are addressed comprehensively under Impact 3.8-1. As discussed therein, compliance with the Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended), the IGP, and the East Contra Costa County MS4 Permit would ensure that erosion and siltation are minimized through centralized and/or distributed implementation of both temporary (construction) and permanent (operation and maintenance) water quality BMPs. Compliance with state and federal water quality regulations and permits are enforced through Division 1014 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) of the County Ordinance Code. For the same reasons discussed under Impact 3.8-1, the impact of the project on water quality (including erosion and siltation) would be less than significant. Under the Construction General Permit, MS4 Permit, and IGP, water quality BMPs are typically focused on the capture and treatment of the more typical (frequent) peak storm events. The exact performance standard varies between regulations and permit programs, but typically require water quality BMPs to be designed to the amount of runoff produced in a storm with a 2-year recurrence interval (e.g., 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event). Project-related increase in runoff produced by more extreme events must be addressed with conveyance, detention, and flood control improvements necessary to avoid flood-related damage to structures and the environment, addressed below under On-Site and Off-Site Flooding. On-Site or Off-Site Flooding The project, due to the aforementioned increases in impervious surfaces, could result in increases in runoff to the on-site detention basin and to Brushy Creek, which is a natural waterway. If not properly controlled, such increases in runoff could exacerbate on- or off-site flooding that already occurs as part of the existing conditions. This impact would be potentially significant. As discussed in Section 3.8.2, a drainage permit would be required to comply with Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits the impairment or impedance of the natural flow of stormwaters; direct physical impacts to watercourses (e.g., 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-32 through grading, excavation, filling, and/or development); or the construction, alteration or repair of a drainage structure, facility, or channel without first obtaining a permit from the public works department. Division 914 establishes on-site and off-site collect and convey requirements that must be met before development approvals are granted. Applicants are required to substantiate that both on-site and off-site drainage facilities have adequate capacity to convey specified design storm events, that the capacity and stability of natural watercourses are adequately protected, and that environmentally sensitive flow velocity attenuation techniques approved by the public works department are implemented. Brushy Creek is a major drainage facility and natural watercourse with a 16-square-mile watershed, whereas the on-site detention basin is estimated to serve a watershed area of under 1 square mile. The majority of the planned development is anticipated to drain to the existing detention basin, based on the drainage pattern shown in Figure 3.8-2 and described in Section 3.8.1. Because the northern edge of the area planned for airport-related uses is close to Brushy Creek, some developed uses may direct drainage to Brushy Creek. Because a hydrology and drainage study has not been completed, it is assumed that the impacts associated with increased runoff during storm events in excess of the 2-year flow are potentially significant. Mitigation Measure (MM) HYD-1 would require the preparation of a drainage and hydrology study to evaluate the difference between pre- and post-project storm flows, and establish drainage designs necessary to mitigate the increase and adequately collect and convey flood flows. Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems It is possible the existing detention basin that serves the airport would not be sufficient to meet the volume and/or water quality requirements of the full build-out scenario for future development. As discussed under Impact 3.8-1, it is expected that LID controls and parcel/project-specific flow control BMPs required under the IGP or MS4 Permit would result in no net increase in runoff from individual developments for more frequent peak flow events. Impact 3.8-1 also describes how parcel-specific stormwater systems would be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained adequately in accordance with applicable water quality regulations. However, sufficient detail is not available to know with certainty whether or not the capacity of the existing stormwater system would be exceeded under a full build-out scenario. Sufficient land is available (designated for airport-related or low intensity uses on the Byron Airport Master Plan) to accommodate modifications or additions to the site’s existing stormwater system or detention basin. Implementation of MM-HYD-1 would ensure that the capacity of the detention basin is adequate to accommodate the project. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-33 Impedance or Redirection of Flood Flows According to FEMA, there is an SFHA (100-year flood hazard area, or a 1% annual chance flood hazard) associated with Brushy Creek (FEMA 2017). The flood zone widens significantly along Brushy Creek in an area located west of Runway 12-30 and west of Falcon Way, and spreads over low-lying areas between the two runways and south of Runway 5-23 (Figure 3.8-3, FEMA Flood Hazard Zones). The majority of the flood zone shown is largely confined to areas of the project site that would be designated as habitat management or low intensity use, which would not have development to impede or redirect flood flows. However, the flood zone intersects the northern end of the proposed airport-related uses south of Armstrong Road and north-northeast of Runway 12-30 (FEMA 2017). In this area, the 100-year flood hazard area overlaps approximately 11.5 acres of area zoned for airport-related uses to a width of up to 800 feet. Also shown in Figure 3.8-3 is a regulatory floodway along Brushy Creek, which ranges between 80 and 255 feet in width, and occupies approximately 2.2 acres out of the 11.5 acres area in which planned development and the flood hazard area overlap. Without proper design, proposed uses could impede or redirect flood flows. Airport-related uses proposed on either side of Brushy Creek, especially those within the regulatory floodway, could constrict the cross-sectional area of the creek and lead to flooding concerns. Creek and habitat conservation buffers would prevent planned development from encroaching of the creek corridor itself and would likewise limit encroachment onto the regulatory floodway. However, considering up to 11.5 acres of the area zoned for airport-related uses is within the FEMA SFHA, the impact of the project on the impedance or redirection of flood flows is potentially significant. MM-HYD-2 would require compliance with existing floodplain management regulations, studies to determine and demonstrate the capacity of the creek corridor would be maintained, coordination with FEMA if the depth or boundaries of the floodplain would be changed as a result, and review and approval by the County Public Works Department. Impact 3.8-4. The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Less than Significant) There are three large bodies of water in the project vicinity: Clifton Court Forebay less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir approximately 3 miles to the south, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir 5 miles to the west. The project site is outside the mapped inundation area for Clifton Court Forebay, Bethany Reservoir, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir. As these water bodies are 2 to 5 miles from the project site, the project site is not subject to risk from a seiche. The project is not at risk of tsunami inundation due to its distance away from any coastline. This impact would be less than significant. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-34 Impact 3.8-5. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant) As discussed under Impact 3.8-1, the project would comply with applicable regulations and permits designed to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin. As discussed under Impact 3.8-2, there is no sustainable GWMP currently adopted for the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.15). It is expected that a GSP will be adopted by 2022; however, for the reasons discussed in Impact 3.8-2, the impacts of the project on the sustainable management of groundwater (e.g., aquifer depletion, well interference, and groundwater recharge) would be less than significant. 3.8.5 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce Impact 3.8-3 to a less-than- significant level. MM-HYD-1 Hydrology and Drainage Study. Prior to approval of individual development plans, a Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be prepared for the project to refine the size and hydrologic characteristics of drainage areas that intersect the project site, to estimate pre- and post-project flow rates and volumes under 10- 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events, and to provide recommendations for needed improvements. The Hydrology and Drainage Study shall quantify the capacity of the existing detention basin; determine whether or not it will be sufficient to serve future land uses; and establish the hydrology performance criteria and design standards applicable to potential future tenants, based on the destination of runoff (i.e., detention basin or Brushy Creek) and the degree of impervious surface coverage. The study shall be consistent with the hydrology performance criteria and design standards contained within the Contra Costa County Drainage Ordinance (Division 914), which include but are not limited to: • Drainage facilities shall be designed to convey a minimum (with sufficient freeboard) of the runoff produced by a) a 10-year storm event for facilities draining an area of less than 1 square mile, b) a 25-year storm event for facilities draining an area of between 1 and 4 square miles, and c) a 50-year storm event (and 100-year event without freeboard) for facilities draining an area of more than 4 square mile. • Finished floors shall be elevated above the base flood elevation of the one- hundred-year frequency storm runoff, as determined using the maximum potential development of the drainage basin or watershed shall. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-35 • Storm flows shall be collected and conveyed in a manner that avoids damage to any improvement, building site or dwelling which may be constructed as part of the project. • Detention basins shall be sized to contain without freeboard a one-hundred- year average recurrence interval runoff, unless it can be shown that a one- hundred-year average recurrence interval runoff can be safely passed through the detention basin without damage to the detention basin or any other property. • Drainage capacity shall be provided that accounts for the full build-out of uses anticipated with the drainage area. The study shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (Flood Control District) for review and approval prior to finalizing individual development plans. In addition, the Hydrology and Drainage Study shall be reviewed by Airports Division staff to ensure any drainage basins proposed are consistent with Federal Aviation Administration aviation obstruction standards for avian attractants (e.g., requirement to drain ponded water within 48 hours of a major storm event). MM-HYD-2 Drainage Protection and Flood Control. For all areas of the project within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA]), Contra Costa County shall ensure that development proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 82-28), Contra Costa County Flood Control Ordinance, and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. Development proposals in this area shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for review and approval, and all requirements imposed by the department shall be satisfied. Such requirements may include floodproofing measures (such as elevating structures above the base flood elevation and providing the required freeboard). In the event development proposals involve encroachment onto or undergrounding of Brushy Creek, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained, per MM-BIO-6, and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department shall be provided with drainage studies and engineering reports sufficient to demonstrate that flood flows on Brushy Creek would not be impeded or redirected. For all development planned within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, subject to approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the developer would be required to file a Conditional Letter of Map Revision to process the change and shall obtain a FEMA modification of the SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-36 3.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-2, the impacts of the project on hydrology and water quality (Impact 3.8-3) would be less than significant. 3.8.7 Cumulative Impacts The setting for the cumulative analysis for surface water is the 243-square-mile Old River Watershed (HUC 1804000306), shown in Figure 3.8-1. The setting for the cumulative analysis for groundwater is the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-022.15). The cumulative effects of past and current projects in the cumulative scenario have resulted in water quality problems in the region’s major waterways, which are described in Section 3.8.1 and are reflected in the plans and policies contained in the Basin Plan. Cumulatively considerable water quality issues are identified as water quality limited segments (or impaired water bodies) under CWA Section 303(d). As described in Table 3.8-3, impairments related to low dissolved oxygen, chlorpyrifos, TDS, and electrical conductivity are identified for Old River and its tributaries. Though CWA Section 303(d) does not apply to groundwater, the Basin Plan addresses groundwater through the establishment of water quality objectives for bacteria, chemical constituents, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, tastes and odors, and toxicity. The groundwater basin is known to have elevated levels of TDS, chloride, nitrate, and boron. In many ways, the analysis of each impact in Section 3.8.4 is also a cumulative analysis, because the thresholds of significance considers even minor, localized, and temporary contributions of pollutants potentially significant, due to the cumulative effects of multiple projects within the watershed. The analysis of groundwater (Impact 3.8-2) considers the cumulative context of the whole basin. The projects in the cumulative scenario that may result in contributions to water quality issues include all development projects that either result in land disturbance, creation of impervious surfaces, and/or release or discharge of pollutants to regional waters. This includes development identified in the County General Plan. Note that most of the land within the watershed is designated for agriculture, public use, open space, and delta recreation (see Figure 3.9-2, Existing General Plan, in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning). The NPDES permits relevant to the proposed project (e.g., Construction General Permit, MS4 Permit, and IGP) are aimed at maintaining the beneficial uses of the water bodies in the Basin Plan and meeting water quality objectives associated with specific pollutants of concern. Because adverse water quality and major hydrologic alterations are linked to the large-scale, cumulative effects of development projects and to commercial and/or agricultural land uses, the provisions within the NPDES permits, by their nature, seek to address cumulative conditions. The project, along with all other projects over 1 acre in size, would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires project proponents to identify and implement 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-37 stormwater BMPs that effectively control erosion and sedimentation and other construction-related pollutants. For cumulative projects under the jurisdiction of the surrounding County and municipalities, stormwater control ordinances and grading permit approval processes also require smaller projects (less than 1 acre) to implement a standard/minimum set of water quality BMPs. Furthermore, all development and redevelopment projects that create or replace impervious surfaces must comply with the regional MS4 Permit and ensure that they meet applicable water quality standards and performance criteria through source control measures, low -impact development BMPs, and other means. Therefore, without compliance with existing regulations, and where required, implementation of mitigation measures, regional impacts on water quality from all projects in the cumulative scenario are potentially significant. With the project’s compliance with the Construction General Permit , MS4 Permit, and IGP, and implementation of MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-2, the project’s contributions to cumulatively significant water quality impacts are reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 3.8.8 References Cited ACMG (Airport California Monitoring Group). 2016. Byron Airport Stormwater Pollu tion Prevention Plan . WDID 5S07I002606. Prepared March 2016, amended through February 2019 . BBID (Byron-Bethany Irrigation District). 2017. Byron-Bethany Irrigation District Agricultural Water Management Plan. Prepared by CH2M. October 2017. Central Valley RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley. Fourth edition. Revised June 2015, with approved amendments. Contra Costa Clean Water Program. 2018. Permit Website. Accessed December 18, 2018. https://www.cccleanwater.org/resources/permit. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30917/Ch7-Public-Facilities_Services-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 8, Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30918/Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-38 Contra Costa County. 2005c. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 10, Safety Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/30920/Ch10-Safety-Element?bidId=. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118. 2003. DWR. 2014. CASGEM Basin Summary. Basin prioritization for the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin. 5/30/2014. DWR. 2018a. Well Completion Report Map Application and Data Download. T01SR3E14, T01SR3E22, T01SR3E23, T01SR3E25, T01SR3E26, T01SR3E27, and T01SR3E28. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b37. DWR. 2018b. Water Data Library. Web Map Service. Records for Well Nos. 01S03E25M999M and 01S03E15A001M. Accessed December 10, 2018. http://wdl.water.ca.gov/ waterdatalibrary/index.cfm. DWR. 2021a. California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Division of Safety of Dams. Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Accessed April 27, 2021 at https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ DWR. 2021b. California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Division of Safety of Dams. Clifton Court Forebay and Bethany Reservoir. Accessed April 27, 2021 at https://fmds.water.ca.gov/ maps/damim/ FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2017. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Contra Costa County, California and Unincorporated Areas. FIRM Panel Nos 06013C0510G and 06013C0530G. Effective March 21, 2017. Accessed at FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Google Earth. 2018. Elevation Profile and Slope Information Tool, Mt. Shasta, California. Accessed December 14, 2018. LFA (Leigh Fisher Associates). 2005. Airport Layout Drawing. Sheet 2 of 11. Prepared for Contra Costa County Airports. Approved by FAA March 11, 2005. Mead and Hunt. 2013. Infrastructure Study for the Byron Airport. Prepared by Mead & Hunt for Contra Costa County. August 2013. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-39 SWRCB. 2018. Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report). Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtm. SWRCB. 2019. Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. Storm Water Data Public Access. Records for WDID 5S07I002606 (Byron Airport). Accessed April 1, 2019. https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/faces/PublicDataAccess/ PublicNoiSearch.xhtml on. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2018. The National Map. National Hydrography Dataset Viewer. Accessed December 12, 2018. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/ viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd. 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-40 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 3/26/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.8-1_BushyCreekWatershed_rev.mxdLower Old River Watershed Bethany Reservoir Clifton Court Forebay Brush y C r e ek Brushy Creek Watershed Califton Court Forebay Watershed Lower Old River Watershed Creeks and Watersheds Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: NAIP 2016, Contra Costa County 2017, DWR 2018 05,3002,650 Feet Project Boundary Aviation and Airport-Related Uses Watershed Boundaries Waterways Perennial Stream Epehemeral or Intermittent Stream FIGURE 3.8-1 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-42 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Site Drainage Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 3.8-2SOURCE: Byron Airport 2016 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-44 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 3/26/2019 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.8-3_FEMA_Hazards.mxdBYRON HW Y OSPREY CTEAGLE CTBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDCLIFTON CT HOLEY RD BRUNS RDARMSTRONG RDFALCON WAYVASCO RDNORTH BRUNS WAYFEMA Flood Hazard Zones Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: NAIP 2016, Contra Costa County 2017, FEMA 2019 02,0001,000 Feet FIGURE 3.8-3 Project Boundary Aviation and Airport-Related Uses Flood Hazard Zones Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 3.8 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.8-46 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-1 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes the existing land use and planning setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, including applicable federal, state, and regional regulations. This section considers the proposed amendments to the General Plan and zoning, the proposed update to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Byron Airport, and the potential development that would result from these changes. 3.9.1 Existing Conditions 3.9.1.1 Regional Byron Airport is located in southeastern Contra Costa County (County) (see Figure 2-1, Project Location, of Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Environmental Impact Report [EIR]). Uses around the airport primarily include agriculture (cattle grazing, vineyards, tree crops, and row crops); additionally, rural residential uses are located to the east and west of the project site. This small community is surrounded by agricultural lands and contains concentrated areas of single- family residential development, commercial and light industrial development centralized along Byron Highway, schools, churches, and wineries. Development is primarily located along Camino Diablo, Byron Highway, and Holway Drive. There are several industrial uses on Byron Hot Springs Road, including cement ready-mix and a recycling yard, between central Byron and the airport. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner of war camp, is located north of the airport to the west of Byron Hot Springs Road. Byron Highway is the primary regional access, located to the north and east of the project site. Byron Highway provides access to the community of Byron, and further north, Highway 4 and the City of Brentwood. To the south, Byron Highway provides access to the community of Mountain House, an unincorporated planned community in San Joaquin County, and Interstate 580. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation Canal crosses the eastern portion of the project site. The Clifton Court Forebay is located less than 2 miles east of the site, Bethany Reservoir is approximately 3 miles to the south, and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 5 miles to the west. The area has numerous wind energy turbines located in the rolling hills of the Diablo Range west of the project site— some within 1 mile of the airport property. Byron Highway is located north and west of the project site. Other significant development in the immediate vicinity includes several high-voltage transmission lines within 3 miles east, west, and south, as well as a railroad line running parallel to Byron Highway. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-2 3.9.1.2 Project Site The project site consists of the airport property south of Armstrong Road, which is approximately 1,307 acres, and the 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of 1,319 acres (see Figure 2-2, Project Site, of Chapter 2 of this EIR). The airport owns an additional 120 acres north of Armstrong Road that is not considered part of the project site. The airport has two runways. The primary runway, Runway 12-30 (northwest–southeast), is 4,500 feet long and 100 feet wide. The crosswind runway, Runway 5-23, is 3,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. Both runways have 20-foot unpaved shoulders. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the “V” formed by the two runways, with approximately 10 acres of aircraft storage area, 4 acres of apron, 125,000 square feet of hangars, and 2,400 square feet of office space. The majority of these facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. Infrastructure is limited, with a detention basin located east of the crosswind runway, in the corner formed by Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. The water system consists of a domestic well with a 4,000-gallon holding tank and a booster pump with a chlorinator. The sewer system consists of a 3,000-gallon underground septic tank and lift station pumping to a leach field located southwest of the main aircraft ramp. Approximately 814 acres of the property are reserved for habitat management, consisting of open grassland with scattered vernal pools and season wetlands and alkali grasslands. 3.9.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Federal Aviation Administration The primary role of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is to promote aviation safety and control the use of airspace. The FAA enforces safety standards and investigates and corrects violations as appropriate. Federal regulations applicable to compatible land use include Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77: Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. Land use at airports is guided by an FAA‐approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), a technical set of drawings that is a graphical representation of the long‐term development plan for the airport. Per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070‐6B, Airport Master Plans, an update of the ALP drawing set should be an element of an airport master plan. Per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070‐6B, FAA only approves the following elements: • Forecasts of demand • ALPs 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-3 The Byron Airport ALP was recently updated in 2016. The approved forecasts were not changed, and the forecasts in the 2005 Airport Master Plan remain in effect. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 77 (Part 77), establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. Part 77 regulations allow the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards to prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. As a part of this process, FAA reviews buildings (aeronautical and non‐aeronautical) on a case-by‐case basis through its Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis program review (i.e., Form 7460). If approved, the subject building receives Form 7460 clearance, which indicates that the building conforms to maximum permissible height standards and would not create a hazard to aircraft. State California State Aeronautics Act The purpose of the California State Aeronautics Act pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq., “is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress.” The State Aeronautics Act provides for the creation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for every county that contains a public use airport. The purpose of an ALUC, per the State Aeronautics Act, is to conduct airport land use compatibility planning. ALUCs protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (PUC Sections 21670–21679.5). The primary mechanism used to accomplish airport land use compatibility planning is the adoption of an ALUCP (PUC Sections 21674[c] and 21675). The California Department of Transportation is involved in state aviation system planning and research through its Division of Aeronautics and its Office of Research and New Technology. California Department of Transportation prepares and regularly updates the California Aviation System Plan, the vehicle by which California Department of Transportation conducts continuous aviation system planning and guides aviation infrastructure investment priorities. The Division of Aeronautics also prepares the state’s official guidance for preparing and implementing an ALUCP, known as the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook was first published in 1993 and updated in 2002. The latest edition of the Handbook was adopted in 2011. Delta Plan The Delta Reform Act of 2009 created the Delta Stewardship Council and required that the Council adopt a legally enforceable Delta Plan to further the achievement of the state’s coequal goals for the Delta - a more reliable statewide water supply and a healthy and protected ecosystem, both 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-4 achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique characteristics of the Delta as an evolving place. The Delta Plan include Policy DP P1 (Title 23 CCR Section 5010): (a) New residential, commercial, and industrial development must be limited to the following areas, as shown in Appendix 6 and Appendix 7: (1) Areas that city or county general plans, as of May 16, 2013, designate for residential, commercial, and industrial development in cities or their spheres of influence; (2) Areas within Contra Costa County's 2006 voter-approved urban limit line, except no new residential, commercial, and industrial development may occur on Bethel Island unless it is consistent with the Contra Costa County general plan effective as of May 16, 2013; (3) Areas within the Mountain House General Plan Community Boundary in San Joaquin County; or (4) The unincorporated Delta towns of Clarksburg, Courtland, Hood, Locke, Ryde, and Walnut Grove. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), new residential, commercial, and industrial development is permitted outside the areas described in subsection (a) if it is consistent with the land uses designated in county general plans as of May 16, 2013, and is otherwise consistent with this Chapter. (c) For purposes of Water Code section 85057.5(a)(3) and section 5001(j)(1)(E) of this Chapter, this policy covers proposed actions that involve new residential, commercial, and industrial development that is not located within the areas described in subsection (a). In addition, this policy covers any such action on Bethel Island that is inconsistent with the Contra Costa County general plan effective as of May 16, 2013. This policy does not cover commercial recreational visitor-serving uses or facilities for processing of local crops or that provide essential services to local farms, which are otherwise consistent with this Chapter. (d) This policy is not intended in any way to alter the concurrent authority of the Delta Protection Commission to separately regulate development in the Delta's Primary Zone. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-5 Local Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The ALUC with jurisdiction over the airport is the Contra Costa ALUC. The current ALUCP was adopted in 2000 (Contra Costa County 2000). The ALUCP includes countywide policies, policies specific to Buchanan Field and Byron Airport, and supporting information. Each airport has an Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is the area within which airport compatibility should be considered for land use decisions. The ALUCP considers four compatibility factors: noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. Land use plans, including codes, specific plans, and zoning ordinances, should be consistent with the ALUCP. Where the relevant land use plan has not been found consistent with the ALUCP, or a change is proposed to that land use plan, the ALUC will consider if the plan or land use action is consistent with the ALUCP. Note that the local land u se agency may override the ALUC’s decision, but in so doing removes any responsibility from the airport operator for land use conflicts. The Byron ALUCP uses “composite zones,” which integrate noise and safety criteria when determining the compatibility of a land use in any given area within the AIA. The 2000 ALUCP was developed under the 1993 version of the Handbook. The current Byron Airport AIA and compatibility zones are shown in Figure 3.9-1. Contra Costa County General Plan The current General Plan is the 2005–2020 General Plan, adopted in 2005. The General Plan Land Use Map identifies the project area as a combination of Public Service and Open Space (indicating the habitat management lands). The acquisition parcel is classified as Agriculture. See Figure 3.9- 2 for the existing General Plan land use designations for the project site. The General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element includes numerous policies that apply to airports and compatible development (Contra Costa County 2005). Airports and Heliports Goals Goal 5-Q To encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county. Goal 5-R To allow heliports, restricted to appropriate locations, which would add to the economic well-being and safety of the county. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-6 Overall Airports Policies Policy 5-58 Protect the Byron Airport environs from urban encroachment through a combination of land acquisition, easement acquisitions and land use regulations. Policy 5-60 Work with the FAA and helicopter operators to minimize conflicts with residential areas and sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, residences, and other sensitive noise receptors. Special Policies that Apply to the East County Airport [Byron] Policy 5-64 The County shall acquire fee title and/or conservation (development rights) easements to an appropriate amount of buffer land around the planned East County Airport. Policy 5-65 The buffer land or conservation easements acquired around the airport shall ensure that incompatible uses will not be allowed to locate within the safety zone. Policy 5-66 Establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed. Policy 5-67 Water and sewer services to the airport will be limited to serve only the airport property; utilities will not serve growth on the adjacent properties. Policy 5-68 No residential development or sensitive receptors, e.g. hospitals, schools, etc., shall be allowed within the projected 60 CNEL noise contours for the new airport. Special Policies Regarding the Airport Land Use Commission Policy 5-69 Structural heights shall be designated by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 surfaces associated with the various runway designations shown on the latest Airport Layout Plan. Policy 5-70 The Structural Height Limits defines maximum structural height. Height limits will be placed on new buildings, appurtenances to buildings, all other structures and lands caping in accordance with the Airport Layout Plan except in special instances when for reasons of safety the Commission may impose a more restrictive structural height. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-7 An applicant for any structure within the Airport Land Use Commission Planning Area proposed to penetrate any height limit surface shall submit an aeronautical analysis which specifies the proposed project's effect on airport instrument procedures for all runways, the effect on airport utility, and the effect on overall aviation safety. If, after reviewing the aeronautical study and other related information, it is determined that the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on safety and airport utility then, the project may be approved for heights other than those indicated by the FAR, Part 77, Structural Height Limits. Policy 5-71 All major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-8 of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing, the County should err on the side of caution and refer the matter to the ALUC staff. Policy 5-72 New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defined by the ALUC Airspace Protection Surfaces will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and other factors which might affect airspace and safety. The County will rely on ALUC land use compatibility guidance and programs for considering airspace safety analysis issues and height limitations of structures. Policy 5-73 Temporary structures, such as construction cranes or antennae, which would penetrate any adopted height limit surface, may be allowed after a case-by-case review, provided that obstruction lighting and marking is installed, and a two week notice of temporary structure emplacement is provided by the proponent to the County Manager of Airports. Temporary structure emplacement shall be subject to reasonable time limit. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-8 Policy 5-74 The County may require an exterior building materials reflectivity analysis upon review of the proposed types of building materials, building height, and building location and use on site. Such analyses should be required for development of any structures on or adjacent to public airports which would be over three stories in height and utilize reflective surfaces. Reflectivity studies shall address the potential for pilot and airport operation interference, proposed mitigation to any identified potential interference resulting from reflected sunlight, and any other subject areas related to reflectivity which the County may deem appropriate. The County may include some or all of the proposed mitigation in its project approval process. Policy 5-75 Within each safety zone designated by the ALUC, the following are incompatible uses (The ALUC Airport Influence Area Maps for Buchanan Field Byron Airports are shown on Figure 5-5.): 1. Any light source which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber color associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA approved facility. 2. Any construction which would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at the airport. 3. Any use which would generate smoke, attract large concentrations of birds, or may otherwise adversely affect safe air navigation within a safety zone. 4. Any use which would generate electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 5. Any use which would utilize or cause to be stored highly toxic, inflammable or otherwise hazardous materials which, in the event of an aircraft accident, could be released into the surrounding environment to threaten human life or property. 6. Within the safety zone clear area, any use which involves the erection of a permanent above ground structure other than FAA approved facilities. 7. Within the safety zones, excluding the clear areas, any use which on a regular basis would result in a density (excluding streets) in excess of 30 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-9 persons per acre or one person/500 square feet of gross building flood area, whichever is less. 8. Any of the following uses: new single and multiple family residences, shopping centers, restaurants, schools, hospitals, arenas, and other places of public assembly. Policy 5-77 Within the ALUC Compatibility Zone B-1, no new lot splits shall be allowed and buildings on existing lots of record shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to two stories in height. The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for the East Contra Costa Airport: 1. agriculture; 2. open space; 3. low intensity park and recreation uses; 4. low occupant density public uses; and 5. parking of automobiles. Implementation Measures Measure 5-bk Create a new zoning district for County-operated airports similar to the Planned Unit (P-1) District zone which provides for public review of on-site projects, and rezone both airports to that district. Measure 5-bn Create a new zoning district to regulate private land use on the two public airports. Zoning The airport property south of Armstrong Road is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit District). The acquisition parcel is zoned A-3 (Heavy Agriculture). The remainder of the airport property north of Armstrong Road is zoned A-3. Figure 3.9-3 shows the existing zoning districts on and near the project site. The Planned Unit District designation is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open space while ensuring substantial compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the Municipal Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-10 Chapter 86-4 of the County Zoning Ordinance, Airport Zoning, addresses land use compatibility for airports. However, this chapter refers only to Buchanan Field by name. 3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to land use and planning are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to land use and planning would occur if the project would: 1. Physically divide an established community. 2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. This is discussed in Section 3.3, Biological Resources. 3.9.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.9-1. The project would not physically divide an established community. (No Impact) The nearest community is Byron, located 2.5 miles north of the project site. There are some rural residences located near the airport. These scattered residences do not form a concentration that could be recognized as a distinct community. The project would be contained to airport property and the acquisition parcel adjacent to the airport property. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. There would be no impact. Impact 3.9-2. The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant) Implementation of the proposed project, specifically the airport-related development, would require amendments to the Byron ALUCP, the County General Plan, and the zoning for the airport. ALUCP Update As discussed above, the current ALUCP for the airport limits not only off-airport development, but on-airport development. The 2000 ALUCP is based on older guidance (the 1993 Handbook) and is also based on a previous Byron Airport Master Plan. As such, the ALUCP is no longer consistent with either current compatibility guidance from the State of California or the objectives of the airport. The proposed ALUCP update would bring the Byron Airport compatibility policies 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-11 into conformance with these plans without allowing incompatible land uses that could affect either surrounding residents or the future operations of the airport. In order to develop economically beneficial uses on the airport, development intensities would be increased to a level more consistent with current Handbook guidance (Table 3.9-1). In addition, by de-coupling the noise and safety criteria, a greater range of industrial and commercial uses could be allowed at the airport. This approach would also create consistency with Buchanan Field, which does not use composite compatibility zones. However, the noise contours used to establish potential exposure to aircraft noise would not be revised. Airspace protection would not change, as the imaginary surfaces used to analyze navigation hazards would remain the same. In addition, the AIA would not change, although a larger notification area would be implemented (the area within which potential homebuyers must be notified of the presence of the airport and the potential for aircraft noise). As discussed below, the General Plan policies and zoning would only affect airport property, and no new land uses would be allowed near the airport that are not currently allowed. The airport environs would remain largely agricultural. Table 3.9-1 Comparison of Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Intensity Criteria and Caltrans Criteria Current ALUCP (as amended) Intensity Criteria Caltrans Handbook Compatibility Zone Average per Gross Acre Maximum Single Acre Safety Zone Average per Gross Acre Maximum Single Acre A 0 0 1 0 0 B1 and B3 40 80 2 10 to 40 2x gross acre B2 70 210 3 50 to 70 3x gross acre C1 100 300 4 70 to 100 3x gross acre C2 70 210 5 50 to 70 3x gross acre D 200 800 6 150 to 200 3x gross acre Source: Caltrans 2011. Note: ALUCP = Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation. Delta Plan The Delta Plan includes policies that are considered essential to achieving the coequal goals, and the project is consistent with policy DP P1. Delta Plan Policy DP P1(a)(2) states, “New residential, commercial, and industrial development must be limited to the following areas, as shown in Appendix 6 and Appendix 7…Areas within Contra Costa County’s 2006 voter-approved urban limit line, except no new residential, commercial, and industrial development may occur on Bethel Island unless it is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan effective as of May 16, 2013.” Stated simply, projects located within Contra Costa County’s 2006 voter-approved Urban Limit Line are not considered a covered action, as urban development is allowed within the County ULL. Since the development that would occur as a result of the proposed project is wholly 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-12 contained within the County ULL, the proposed project is consistent with policy DP P1, which would then result in the project supporting the achievement of the coequal goals. As it would support the achievement of the coequal goals, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on achievement of one or both of the coequal goals, and, therefore, the proposed project is not a covered action under the Delta Plan. General Plan Update The proposed project would help implement Goal 5-Q, to encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county, by providing for the economic development and financial self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The General Plan policies regarding the airport would be amended to clarify that compatible non- aviation uses would be allowed on airport property. General Plan Policy 5-66 would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on-airport if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Byron Airport Master Plan. The incompatible uses listed in policy 5-75 would not change, to ensure the protection of airport operations. Policy 5-77 would be updated to reflect the new compatibility zone designations (Zone B-1 would become Safety Zone 2) and the additional on-airport uses that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP. Policies protective of the future operation of the airport, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding residents would not be changed. Zoning Amendment The P-1 district for Byron Airport would be revised to identify the land use categories used in the ALP: aviation, non-aviation, low intensity, and habitat management. Additional land uses that could be allowed within the aviation and non-aviation areas would be identified, as discussed in Section 2.6, Proposed Land Uses and Zoning, of this EIR. The Zoning Amendment would specify that all proposed land uses must be reviewed by County staff for consistency with the current ALUCP. The zoning would also implement the ALUCP and General Plan standards for compatible land use, including height restrictions. As described above, the development of aviation and non-aviation land uses on the airport would not cause conflicts with the applicable land use plans. The impact would be less than significant. 3.9.5 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-13 3.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Land use impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 3.9.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts for land use may occur if the proposed project, in conjunction with other projects, would have the potential to create land use conflicts that would not be significant on an individual basis. More specifically, multiple amendments to the General Plan, ALUCP, or Zoning Ordinance may create additional conflicts. No projects are proposed that would affect the airport General Plan designation, ALUCP, or Planned Unit District zoning. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur. 3.9.8 References Cited Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Division of Aeronautics. October 2011. Contra Costa County. 2000. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted December 2000. Contra Costa County. 2005. General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 5, Transportation and Circulation Element. January 18, 2005. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View /30915/Ch5-Transportation-and-Circulation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2018. Municipal Code. Title 8. Zoning. Accessed December 15, 2018. https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code? nodeId=TIT8ZO. 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-14 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B1 B3 A B1 B3 B2 B3 B1 B1 A A C C C C B2 B2 B2 B3 D DD D D D B3 B1 A B3 B1 B1 C C C C B1 B3 Figure 1 Compatibility Map Byron AirportC:\Users\870tme\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_8172\C83 Byron.ALP LandUse-ADD-COMPAT-ZONES.dwg Jul 20, 2017 - 3:51pmPrepared By: www.meadhunt.com 3,000Feet0 1,500' Airport AIA & Compatibility Zones Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 3.9-1SOURCE: Contra Costa County 2015Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-16 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HERCULESPINOLERICHMONDMARTINEZCONCORDPLEASANTHILLWALNUTCREEK LAFAYETTE CLAYTON ANTIOCH OAKLEYBRENTWOOD SANRAMON DANVILLE ORINDA MORAGA ELCERRITOPITTSBURGRICHMONDRICHMONDSANPABLO BethelIslandKensingtonElSobranteRodeoCrockett Alamo Knightsen DiscoveryBay Byron BayPointPacheco Blackhawk Diablo Canyon PortCostaClydeNorthRichmond Saranap Cont CostCentreMtViewVineHillTaraHillsMontalvinManorBay ViewReliezValley SanMiguel ShellRidge NorthGate Acalanes Ridge CastleHill AlhambraValley CaminoTassajara NorrisCanyon BrionesRollingE.HtsRichwoodSanPabloBay San Francisco Bay SuisunBaySan Pablo ReservoirBrionesReservoir LosVaquerosReservoir Clifton Court Forebay FranksTractJoaquinSacramento R iv e rHonkerBay San Leandro Reservoir LafayetteReservoir CarquinezStraitMallardReservoir BigBreak Old RiverS a n R i v e r California AqueductMountDiablo StatePark BrionesRegionalParkWildcatCanyonRegionalPark TildenRegionalPark Point Pinole Regional ShorelineCarquinezStraitRegionalShorelineFormer Concord Naval Weapons Station (Future Regional Park)KellerCanyonLandfill Contra LomaRegional ParkBlack Diamond MinesRegional PreserveBrowns IslandRegional Preserve Shell RidgeOpen Space DiabloFoothillsRegionalPark LimeRidgeOpenSpace Las TrampasRegionalWilderness Bishop RanchRegionalOpen Space Morgan TerritoryRegional Park Round ValleyRegional Preserve Marsh CreekState Park Vasco C avesRegional Park ByronAirport JerseyIsland RedwoodRegionalPark St. Mary'sCollege CrockettHillsRegionalPreserveJohn MuirNationalHistoricSite SibleyVolcanicRegionalPreserve MilitaryOceanTerminalConcordCal StateEast BayBuchananField BradfordIsland WebbTractHollandTractVealeTractPalmTract OrwoodTract ByronTract ConeyIsland CampParks QuimbyIslandChevronRefineryPortofRichmondShellRefineryTesoroGoldenEagleRefineryPhillips 66Refinery WinterIslandLosMedanosCollegeDiabloValleyCollegeContraCostaCollege CaldecottTunnel MARSH CREEK RD BALFOUR RDSAN PABLO AVE CAMINO TASSAJARA V A S C O R O A D CLAYTON RDBAILEY RDMORGAN TERRITORY RDDEER VALLEY RDLONE TREE WAY CAMINO DIABLO SAN PABLO DAM RDTREAT BLVDALHAMBRA AVE BOLLINGER CANYON RD YGNACIO VALLEY RD M ORAGA WAY MORAGA RDALHAMBRA VALLEY RD NORT H GAT E RDDANVI L L E BL VDN MAIN STWALNUT BLVDWATERFRONT RD H I G H LA N D R D E 18TH ST S AN R AMON VAL L E Y B L VDBUCHANAN RDBEAR CREEK RDWILBUR AVEWILLOW PASS RDPACHECO BLVDKIRKER PASS RDCROW CANYON RD SUNSET RD23RD STDOUGHE RT Y R D ( 2 0 1 8 ) RHEEM BLVD DIABLO RDRICHMOND PKWYHILLCREST AVEBYRON HWYRELIEZ VALLEY RDCUTTING BLVD PINEH URST RDTAYLOR BLVDCAMIN O P ABLOA STOAK GROVE RDCUMMINGS SKWY E CYPRESS RDW LELAND RD FAIRVIEW AVMT DIABLO BLVD SAINT MARYS RDRAILROAD AVEBLACKHAWK RD DELTA RDPORT CHICAGO HWYMACDONALD AVEAPPIAN WAY HAPPY VALLEY RD ARLINGTON BLVD 10TH ST STONE VALLEY RD HILLTOP DRE LELAND RD OLYMPIC BLVDPLEASANT HI LL RDGEARY RDE 14TH ST EDEN PLAINS RDWALNUT AVECONTRA COSTA BLVDCANYON RDPINOLE VALLEY RD SOMERSVILLE RDKNIGHTSEN AVEJAMES DONLON BLVD SUMMIT RD DEER HILL RD CONCORD AVEMONUMENT BLVDBANCROFT RD S MAI N STMT DIABLO S C ENIC BLVD BETHEL ISLAND RDBIXLER RDCASTRO RANCH RDWILLOW AVGARRARD BLVDPOMONA STARLING T ON AVOAK PARK BLVDCASTRO STMARINA VISTA22ND STW 10TH STMEADOW LNPARKER AVECROCKETT BLVD PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HWY H A R TZ A V E W CUTTING BLVD DISCOVERY BAY BLVDS 23RD STGREEN VALLEY RDB Y R O N H WY M A RS H C REE K R D BOLLINGER CANYON RD CAMINO TASSAJARABALFOUR RD BRENTWOOD BLVD MAIN ST MAIN STSYCAMORE VALLEY RDGLORIETTA BLVDSAN PABLO AVEWILLOW PASS RDSAN P ABLO D A M RDSAN PABLO AVELONE TREE WAYALHAMBRA AVERELIEZ VALLEY RD MORGAN TERRI T ORY RDC A M I N O D I A B L O MARSH CREEK RDSAN PABLO AVEMCEWEN RDEL PORTAL DRCARLSONBLVDMOESER LNCLAYTON RDPORT CHICAGO HWYEVORA RDBAILEY RDDEER VALLEY RD BRENTWOOD BLVDVASCO ROADWINDEMERE PKWYYGNACIO VALLEY RD§¨¦80 }þ24 §¨¦680 §¨¦680 §¨¦680 }þ4}þ4}þ4}þ4 }þ4 }þ4 §¨¦80 §¨¦580}þ242 }þ160§¨¦680 Map created 05/4/2014 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W 0 4 82Miles Lambert Conformal Conic Projection This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. The General Plan Land Use Map categories are valid in Unincorporated Contra Costa County only. The Land Use's displayed within incorporated Cities have been interpreted by the County and included for context only. The County assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Please contact the individual cities for their General Plan Land Uses. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be al tered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. 122°24'0"W 122°24'0"W 122°18'0"W 122°18'0"W 122°12'0"W 122°12'0"W 122°6'0"W 122°6'0"W 122°0'0"W 122°0'0"W 121°54'0"W 121°54'0"W 121°48'0"W 121°48'0"W 121°42'0"W 121°42'0"W 121°36'0"W 121°36'0"W 37°42'0"N 37°48'0"N 37°48'0"N 37°54'0"N 37°54'0"N 38°0'0"N 38°0'0"N38°6'0"N 38°6'0"N Map includes all amendments through April 2014. For higher detail and the most current designations please refer to the county's Maps & GIS website: http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1818/Maps-GIS for an interactive map and GIS data downloads. 6 E S W N General Plan Designations for Land Within Contra Costa County SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) WS (Watershed) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) M -3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M -4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M -5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M -6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M -7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M -8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M -9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) MU (Mixed Use) M -1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M -2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) AL, OIBA(Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) M -10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M -11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M -12 (Triangle Area Station Mixed Use) M -13 (San Pablo Dam Rd Mixed Use) Project Site General Plan Designations for Land Within Contra Costa County SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) WS (Watershed) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) M -3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M -4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M -5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M -6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M -7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M -8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M -9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) MU (Mixed Use) M -1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M -2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) M -10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M -11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M -12 (Triangle Area Station Mixed Use) M -13 (San Pablo Dam Rd Mixed Use) Existing General Plan Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 3.9-2SOURCE: Contra Costa County 2014Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Byron Airport Zoning Map Scale 1:31,985 Contra Costa Internet GIS Map Printed: Oct 13, 2015 4:04:31 PM Project Boundary Byron Airport Zoning Map Scale 1:31,985 Contra Costa Internet GIS Map Printed: Oct 13, 2015 4:04:31 PM Project Boundary Existing Zoning Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 3.9-3SOURCE: Contra Costa County 2015Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.9 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.9-20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-1 3.10 NOISE This section describes the noise present in the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) area, and discusses applicable federal, state, and regional regulations pertaining to noise. This section also evaluates the potential effects related to noise associated with development of the proposed project. 3.10.1 Existing Conditions This section describes the existing noise conditions in the project area, and also identifies the existing sensitive receptors that could be affected by the project. 3.10.1.1 Transportation Noise Sources Aviation Aircraft operations are the primary noise source emanating from Byron Airport. The most current airport noise contours are available in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (Contra Costa County 2000). Three noise-sensitive residential lots are located in the immediate vicinity of the airport, and based on the ALUCP, two residences are located within the 55 to 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour. No residential uses are located within the 60 dBA CNEL contour line. Figure 3.10-1, Noise Contours, shows the Byron Airport noise contours. Roadways Vehicular traffic along Byron Highway is a principal contributor to the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site. Other roads in the vicinity of the project site, including Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road, are existing secondary contributors. Regional access to the project site is provided by Byron Highway. Access to the main portion of the project site is provided by Holey Road or Armstrong Road. Noise-sensitive receptors located along these roadways would experience traffic noise increases due to the proposed project. 3.10.1.2 Other Noise Sources The project site is mostly undeveloped land that is relatively flat. Surrounding land uses include rural residential and agricultural/grazing land. 3.10.1.3 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise. The Noise Element of the Contra Costa General Plan (Contra Costa County 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-2 2005a) identifies residential areas as one type of NSLU. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise, with the exception of commercial lodging facilities. NSLUs in the immediate vicinity of the project site are as follows: • Residences located immediately east of the project site along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road • Residences along other roadways studied in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the proposed project (Appendix H of this Environmental Impact Report) 3.10.1.4 Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses Land uses where groundborne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations (FTA 2006), are considered “vibration sensitive.” The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the groundborne vibration. Excessive levels of groundborne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can also result in annoyance to occupants of residential land uses and the structures they inhabit. 3.10.1.5 Existing Noise Levels Existing (pre-project) noise conditions present in the vicinity of the project site were inventoried by Dudek in April 2016. Four short-term (varying from 2- to 20-minute durations) measurements were performed along existing roadways to quantify and help characterize the outdoor ambient sound environment, likely dominated by roadway traffic, and support calibration of the traffic noise prediction model. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3.10-2. The results of the traffic noise measurements are presented in Table 3.10-1. The highest measured average noise level was associated with traffic on Byron Highway, and was 77 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) at a distance of approximately 10 feet from the edge of the pavement. The measured noise level along Holey Road was 67 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 23.5 feet from the centerline of the road on April 12, 2016, and 57 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 21 feet from the centerline of the road on April 16, 2016. These levels varied based on the duration of the measurement and the traffic volumes on the road during the measurement. The noise level along Falcon Way was 64 dBA Leq at approximately 15.5 feet from the road centerline. The noise level along Armstrong Road was 58 dBA Leq at approximately 23 feet from the road centerline. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-3 Table 3.10-1 Traffic Noise Level Measurements (Existing) Measurement No. Measurement Date Measurement Time Perioda dBA Leq Remarks 1 04/12/2016 11:50 a.m.– 12:30 p.m. 67 Along Holey Road east of project site 2 04/12/2016 1:34 p.m.– 1:48 p.m. 64 Along Falcon Way 3 04/12/2016 2:05 p.m.– 2:21 p.m. 77 Along Byron Highway 4 04/15/2016 2:28 p.m.– 2:30 p.m. 57 Along Holey Road east of project site 5 04/15/2016 3:10 p.m.– 3:30 p.m. 58 Along Armstrong Road Source: Data measured by Dudek in April 2016. dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level. a Measurement times varied within the time ranges specified based on traffic. 3.10.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal The following federal regulations pertaining to noise would apply to the proposed project. Federal Aviation Administration Standards Enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Part 150 prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. Title 14 also identifies those land uses that are normally compatible with various levels of exposure to noise by individuals. The Federal Aviation Administration has determined that interior sound levels up to 45 dBA Ldn (or CNEL) are acceptable within residential buildings. The Federal Aviation Administration also considers residential land uses to be compatible with exterior noise levels at or less than 65 dBA Ldn (or CNEL) (49 U.S.C. § 47501et seq, 1979). Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Standards Although the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards are intended for federally funded mass transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and criteria included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2006) are routinely used for projects proposed by local jurisdictions. The FTA has published guidelines for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration associated with transit projects, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects. For example, the FTA guidance threshold for architectural damage risk pertaining to “engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)” is 0.3 inches per second peak particle velocity (ppv), which can be applied when assessing construction-related vibration impacts upon proximate existing buildings 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-4 State The following state regulations pertaining to noise would apply to the proposed project. California Noise Control Act of 1973 Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, states that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare, and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The California Noise Control Act also identifies a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act states that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. State Model Community Noise Control Ordinance Contra Costa County (County) does not have a quantitative noise ordinance for regulating noise from mechanical equipment or construction. However, a Model Noise Control Ordinance was created by the State of California to provide guidance for communities to develop their own noise ordinances. The Model Noise Ordinance has not been adopted by the County and is not enforced by the state, but it is discussed in this analysis to help provide context for the potential noise impacts of the proposed project. The exterior noise level limits recommended by the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance are shown in Table 3.10-2, Traffic Noise Level Measurements (Existing), and correspond to the median noise level (L50). The L50 is the sound level in dBA that is met or exceeded 50% of time. These limits are not to be exceeded at the receiving land use for more than 30 minutes in 1 hour. The limits are to be adjusted based on the duration of the source, the level of the ambient noise, the character of the sound, and the location of the measurement. Table 3.10-2 Traffic Noise Level Measurements (Existing) Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (Ldn dBA) Rural Suburban Suburban Urban One- and Two-Family Dwellings 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. 40 45 50 Source: Veneklasen 1975. dBA = A-weighted decibel; Ldn = day/night Level In addition, the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance provides a noise limit of Ldn 80 dBA for short-term or intermittent construction activities adjacent to multi-family residential properties, 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-5 and a noise limit of Ldn 85 dBA at commercial properties.1 Although the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance has not been adopted by the County, this reference is provided as context for assessing the proposed project’s noise levels. Some activity or equipment noise cannot meet this standard (such as back-up alarms, which are required by state safety regulations). Local Contra Costa County Noise Element The Noise Element of the County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005a) sets various goals and policies that apply to all development projects in the County. Most of these policies address land use compatibility standards for evaluating new projects. Applicable noise goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Noise Element are as follows (Contra Costa County 2005a): Goal 11-B To maintain appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the County. Goal 11-C To ensure the new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB [decibels]. However, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multi- family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-6 If an area is currently below the maximum “normally acceptable” noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not be allowed necessarily. 1 Ldn stands for day/night level. The Ldn is the average equivalent sound level over a 24-hour period, with a penalty added for noise during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. During the nighttime period, 10 dB is added to reflect the impact of the noise. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-6 Policy 11-8 Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods. Policy 11-11 Noise impacts upon the natural environment, including impacts on wildlife, shall be evaluated and considered in review of development projects. Figure 3.10-3, Land Use Compatibility Criteria, presents the ranges for acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable noise exposure levels for different land uses in the County pursuant to General Plan Noise Element Policy 11.1 and Figure 11-6 (Contra Costa County 2005). The Noise Element also discusses how noise increases are perceived by people (Contra Costa County 2005a), as follows: An important factor in assessing a person’s subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the prior existing level, the less acceptable it is. Therefore, a new noise source will be judged more annoying in a quiet area than it would be in a noisier location. Knowledge of the following relationships is helpful in understand how changes to noise and noise exposure are perceived. • Except under special conditions, a change in sound level of 1 dB cannot be perceived; • Outside a laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected; and • A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response. The following implementation measures related to development review are included in the Noise Element (Contra Costa County 2005a): Measure 11-a Continue to require a review and analysis of noise-related impacts as part of the existing project development review procedures of the County. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-7 Measure 11-b Evaluate the noise impacts of a proposed project upon existing land uses in terms of the applicable Federal, State, and local codes, and the potential for adverse community response, based on a significant increase in existing noise levels. Contra Costa County Transportation Element The following policy related to noise is included in the County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element (Contra Costa County 2005b): Policy 5-68 No residential development or sensitive receptors, e.g. hospitals, schools, etc., shall be allowed within the projected 60 CNEL noise contours for the new airport [Byron]. Contra Costa County Municipal Code The County’s Municipal Code does not contain quantitative standards for regulating noise from mechanical equipment. However, Section 716-8.1004 of the Municipal Code addresses hours of operation for excavation and grading activities. If operations under the permit are within 500 feet of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations are limited to weekdays and to the hours of between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at any time (Contra Costa County 2018). Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Chapter 4 of the County ALUCP addresses noise and states that “from a community land use planning stand-point, noise contours are most appropriately applied at the general plan, specific plan, or other broad-scale level” (Contra Costa County 2000). Table 4A of the ALUCP describes the compatibility of various land uses with the different airport noise contours (Figure 3.10-4, Airport Compatibility Criteria, of the ALUCP). The ALUCP also sets 45 dBA CNEL as the maximum acceptable interior noise level from aircraft-related activities (Contra Costa County 2000). 3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the proposed project’s impacts related to noise are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if the project would result in: 1. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-8 2. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Contra Costa County Significance Criteria Noise Significance Criteria As summarized in Section 3.10.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, standards established by the County General Plan Noise Element were used to establish quantitative significance thresholds with respect to airborne noise. The Noise Element defines noise sensitive areas as residential areas (Contra Costa County 2005a). Figure 3.10-3 (corresponding to Figure 11-6 of the Noise Element) identifies the noise compatibility criteria for various land uses. In addition, Noise Element Policy 11-2 identifies 60 dBA Ldn as the level normally compatible with residential uses. According to the Noise Element, an increase in outdoor sound level of greater than 10 dB would be expected to cause an adverse community response. Policy 11-6 states that if an area is currently below the normally acceptable noise level, an increase up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed (Contra Costa County 2005a). Therefore, for assessment of operational noise impacts to the exterior of residential receptors due to the proposed project, which includes separate consideration of transportation noise sources and stationary noise sources (e.g., operating heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] systems featured on newly proposed project structures), a project-related increase above 60 dB Ldn or a change of 10 dB in outdoor ambient levels would be a potentially significant impact. For noise levels inside residences, a threshold of 45 dBA Ldn would be used and would be compatible with the California Building Code. For construction activity, per Noise Element Policy 11-8 and County Code Section 716-8.1004, an expected outdoor ambient level increase of greater than 10 dB or exceeding 60 dBA Ldn would be a significant impact if occurring outside of the allowable hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Groundborne Vibration Significance Criteria In the absence of local regulatory significance thresholds for vibration from construction equipment, the proposed project uses guidance from the California Department of Transportation to assess vibration -related impact significance, which includes a vibration limit of 0.3 inches per second (in/sec) ppv with respect to building damage risk for “older residential structures ,” and 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-9 0.5 in/sec ppv for “new residential structures” and “modern industrial/commercial buildings” when continuous or frequent vibration sources are anticipated (Caltrans 2013). For adverse human reaction, the proposed projected used a “strongly perceptible” annoyance criterion of 0.1 in/sec ppv (Caltrans 2013), consistent with nuisance prevention per Sect ion 716-8.1008 of the County Municipal Code. 3.10.4 Impacts Analysis 3.10.4.1 Methods of Analysis The project setting was developed by reviewing available information on noise and sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This review was supplemented with noise measurements. Sound level measurements were performed using a Rion NL-62 integrating sound level meter, which is classified by the American National Standards Institute as a Type I (precision-grade) device. The sound level meter was calibrated before each measurement using a Rion NC-74 calibrator. To evaluate existing and future noise levels from traffic, the CadnaA noise modeling software was used. CadnaA includes traffic noise algorithms based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Noise Model (TNM Version 2.5). The model was first calibrated. Traffic counts were made during the noise measurements. To calibrate the noise model, the same traffic volume and vehicle composition ratios counted during the noise measurements were used, along with the observed vehicle speed (which may differ from the posted speed limit for the roadway). Using vehicle counts and observed speeds, the modeled noise values were within 2 dB of the measured noise levels, which confirms the accuracy of the inputs used in the noise model. The proposed project’s traffic engineers (GHD 2019) provided trip generation data and resulting roadway traffic volumes for each of the major roadways in the project area for the existing, proposed project, and cumulative scenarios. The representative existing and proposed future modeled receivers are shown in Figure 3.10-3. As part of the CNEL calculation process, it was assumed that the average hourly traffic volume was approximately equal to 10% of the average daily trips. To assess noise exposure for NSLUs situated along roadways, the analysis used the greatest anticipated future roadway traffic volume. This is the scenario associated with the cumulative- plus-project traffic forecast. Using the existing roadway location data and identified future traffic volumes (from project development and cumulative traffic), traffic noise along each of the main project-related roadways was modeled with CadnaA. Receptor points in the noise model were placed at representative existing NSLUs. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-10 3.10.4.2 Analysis Impact 3.10-1. The project would result in generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area in excess of standards established in the local general. (Potentially Significant) Operation Roadway Noise Off-Site Impacts Project-generated traffic would have the potential to affect off-site existing NSLUs. Using the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by the project’s traffic engineers (GHD 2019 [Appendix H]), the roadway segments with the most project-related traffic trips and with adjacent existing NSLUs were identified and modeled in CadnaA. These modeling locations are shown in Figure 3.10-5, Noise Modeling Locations. Table 3.10-3, Existing and Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise, summarizes the traffic-related noise levels at the representative off-site NSLUs for existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project traffic scenarios. As shown in Table 3.10-3, project-related traffic noise increases would be less than 3 dB (the normal level of perception) at 10 of the modeled receivers, but not at M1, M2, or M3. At M1, M2, and M3, project- related traffic noise increases would be 10 dB or greater. For M1, the existing plus project traffic noise level is predicted to be 60 dBA CNEL, and the existing traffic noise level is 46 dBA CNEL. For M2, the existing plus project traffic noise level is predicted to be 54 dBA CNEL, and the existing traffic noise level is 44 dBA CNEL. For M3, the existing plus project traffic noise level is predicted to be 57 dBA CNEL, and the existing traffic noise level is 47 dBA CNEL. Per the significance thresholds, an increase of 10 dB or more is significant when ambient noise levels without the project are less than 60 dBA. Since M1, M2, and M3 would experience an increase of 10 dB or greater when the project-related traffic is added, the threshold would be exceeded. These receivers are indicated in Table 3.10-3 in bold. Off-site impacts would be potentially significant. Table 3.10-3 Existing and Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise (dBA CNEL) Modeled Receiver Description Existing Existing plus Project Increase with Project from Existing Cumulative Cumulative plus Project Increase with Project in Cumulative Condition M1 Holey Road Residence 46 60 14 49 60 11 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-11 Table 3.10-3 Existing and Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise (dBA CNEL) Modeled Receiver Description Existing Existing plus Project Increase with Project from Existing Cumulative Cumulative plus Project Increase with Project in Cumulative Condition M2 Byron Hot Springs Road Southern Residence 44 54 10 46 54 8 M3 Byron Hot Springs Road North Residence 47 57 10 49 57 8 M4 Byron Highway Representative Residence 1 67 68 1 69 70 1 M5 Byron Highway between Camino Diablo Road to Holway Drive Representative Residence 2 68 70 1 70 71 1 M6 Byron Highway Northern Representative Residence 3 66 67 1 67 67 0 M7 SR4 Representative Residence 65 65 0 66 66 0 M8 Camino Diablo Road West Residence 43 44 1 47 47 0 M9 Camino Diablo Road between Vasco Road and Holway Drive Residence 63 64 1 65 66 1 M10 Camino Diablo Road Holway Drive and Bryon Highway Residence 63 64 1 64 65 1 M11 Camino Diablo Road East Residence 60 61 1 62 62 0 M12 Holway Drive between Camino Diablo and Byron Highway 64 64 0 65 65 0 M13 Vasco Road Southern Residence 50 50 0 52 52 0 Source: Data measured by Dudek in April 2016. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level. Assumed traffic speed for all roads was 55 miles per hour. Bold = threshold would be exceeded 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-12 Noise from Proposed On-Site Land Uses Implementation of the project would result in changes to existing noise levels on the project site by developing new stationary sources of noise and by increasing human activity throughout the project site. These sources may affect NSLUs adjacent to the project site. Potential noise- generating land uses on site include commercial and industrial uses. Commercial Potential operational noise sources associated with commercial development within the project site would consist of HVAC equipment, commercial truck deliveries, and noise at surface parking lots. Mechanical HVAC equipment located on the ground or on rooftops of buildings have the potential to generate noise levels that average 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet when equipment is operating continuously for 24 hours. Depending on where it is located, HVAC equipment could have the potential to disrupt nearby residents. For a single point source, such as a piece of mechanical equipment, the sound level typically decreases by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source under “hard-surface” conditions typical of a developed commercial site. Therefore, it was assumed that HVAC equipment would generate noise levels that would exceed 60 dBA Ldn CNEL within approximately 150 feet of the equipment. Consequently, any proposed HVAC equipment within 150 feet of an existing off-site residence could result in a potentially significant impact. The nearest off-site residences are located east of the project site approximately 160 feet or more from proposed project buildings. Therefore, impacts to off-site receptors related to on-site HVAC equipment would be less than significant. When back-up alarms are used on site, reference sound pressure levels are anticipated to be 75 dBA at 50 feet (based on Federal Signal Model 252 or similar). The corresponding hourly Leq would depend on how often such an alarm may be used. Assuming not more than 1 minute per hour, the resulting sound level would be 57 dBA at 50 feet. Since the closest residences are more than 100 feet away from the project site, the hourly Leq would less than 51 dBA. Due to the short duration, the noise impact of back-up alarm operations would be less than significant. Noise sources from parking lots and storage facilities include car alarms, door slams, radios, and tire squeals. A noise assessment for the Historic Town Center in the City of San Juan Capistrano provides typical noise levels for different parking lot events. This source indicates that car door slams and engine start-ups usually are 60 to 70 dBA at 50 feet, a car alarm noise is between 65 and 70 dBA at 50 feet, and car pass-bys range from 55 to 70 dBA at 50 feet (Mestre Greve Associates 2011). These sources are generally short-term and intermittent. Noise levels from these typical parking lot noise sources would be less than 64 dBA at NSLUs located more than 100 feet away. These operations would result in noise levels less 60 dBA Ldn CNEL due to the short duration and intermittent nature expected on the project site. Thus, parking lot noise impacts would be less than significant. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-13 Construction Construction of the proposed development would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity and equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. Noise from construction equipment generally exhibits point-source acoustical characteristics. A point-source sound is attenuated (i.e., reduced) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source for “hard site” conditions, and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for “soft site” conditions. These rules apply to the propagation of sound waves with no obstacles between source and receivers, such as topography (ridges or berms) or structures. The range of maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment is depicted in Table 3.10-4. Table 3.10-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Use Factor (Percent) Measured Lmax at 50 feet (dBA, slow) Backhoe 40 78 Compactor (ground) 20 83 Compressor (air) 40 78 Crane 16 81 Dozer 40 82 Dump Truck 40 76 Excavator 40 81 Flat Bed Truck 40 74 Front-End Loader 40 79 Generator 50 81 Grader (spec) 40 85 Man Lift 20 75 Pavement Scarifier 20 90 Paver 50 77 Pickup Truck 40 75 Pneumatic Tools 50 85 Roller 20 80 Tractor (spec) 40 84 Warning Horn 5 83 Welder/Torch 40 74 Source: FTA 2006. Lmax = Maximum sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibel. All proposed development would involve grading and site preparation, as well as utilities installation, building construction, external/internal building work, and paving. Standard 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-14 equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, scrapers, miscellaneous trucks) would be used for construction. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower levels. Special construction techniques such as blasting or pile driving are not anticipated. The nearest off-site NSLUs to the project site are the residences located immediately adjacent to the project site on the northeastern site boundary. Although the adjacent residences could be exposed to elevated construction noise levels, the exposure would be short term and would cease upon construction completion. It is anticipated that project construction would comply with the County ordinance limiting noise-generating construction activities to between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction noise impacts would, therefore, be less than significant. Summary Project operations would result in substantial traffic-related increases in outdoor ambient noise levels at three residential locations. This impact would be potentially significant. Impact 3.10-2. The project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less than Significant) Construction of new on-site facilities, such as the proposed warehousing structures located adjacent to private properties along Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road, would involve operation of heavy construction equipment during allowable daytime hours. The shortest apparent distance between these construction activities and the nearest inhabited buildings would be approximately 125 feet (e.g., the apparent farm house associated with the private parcel at 3773 Armstrong Road). At this distance and per FTA general assessment estimation techniques that include a reference vibration level of 0.21 in/sec ppv at 25 feet, groundborne vibration from a vibratory roller operating as close as the project property line would propagate to a level of 0.02 in/sec at the façade of this nearest receptor position. This vibration velocity magnitude does not exceed the aforementioned 0.3 in/sec ppv for building damage risk or the more stringent 0.1 in/sec California Department of Transportation-based guidance threshold for human annoyance; thus, construction activity vibration impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. The same vibration-sensitive residential buildings and their occupants discussed above with respect to proposed project construction vibration are already exposed to potential sources of groundborne vibration associated with the airport’s existing and on-going general aviation operations. However, general aviation takeoffs, landings, and taxiing are unlikely to cause perceptible levels of groundborne vibration velocity impacts due to the relatively long distances between the runway and taxiways and the nearest inhabited structures on adjoining private properties. For this reason, groundborne vibration velocity level impacts (and noise due to excitation of building structural surfaces from this groundborne vibration) associated with proposed project operation would be less than significant. 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-15 Impact 3.10-3. The project is located within an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Less than Significant) Airport Noise Contours The noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residential land uses) that surround the project site are already exposed to noise levels due to operation of Byron Airport (refer to Figure 3.10-1 for the existing airport noise contours). The proposed project would not affect general aviation activities or forecasts. The proposed ALUCP update would not change the Byron Airport noise contours (as shown in Figure 3.10-6, Proposed ALUCP Noise Policy Map), nor would it change the compatibility criteria for NSLUs. Additionally, no new noise-sensitive receptors would be established in the vicinity of the proposed project: the development considered in this project consists of aviation facilities per the Byron Airport Master Plan, and a potential range of non- aviation uses, including industrial and commercial uses. Therefore, aircraft noise impacts would be less than significant. 3.10.5 Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation measures have been identified for Impact 3.10-1. Installation of noise walls is not a feasible mitigation measure in these locations due to the position of the residences and driveway access. 3.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 3.10-1 would remain potentially significant, since there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Residential uses (sensitive receptors) would be exposed to significant traffic noise due to the project. Traffic noise walls in the vicinity of the impacted sensitive receptors, while potentially effective, are not feasible due to the location of the receptors. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Other operational impacts, such as commercial activities, would be less than significant. 3.10.7 Cumulative Impacts Impact 3.10-1 incorporates cumulative traffic volumes to determine the significance of potential noise impacts. The cumulative effect of traffic noise is potentially significant. Noise walls are not a feasible mitigation measure in the locations where potentially significant impacts would occur. Thus, this cumulative traffic noise impact is potentially significant. No other reasonably foreseeable development would affect temporary or permanent ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Aircraft operations at Byron Airport are expected to be consistent with the aviation 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-16 forecasts relied upon in the ALUCP update. Therefore, all non-traffic cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. 3.10.8 References Cited Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. Contra Costa County. 2000. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. December 13, 2000. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4307/Airport-Land-Use-Commission-ALUC. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 11, Noise Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30921/Ch11-Noise-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 5, Transportation and Circulation Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation-and- Circulation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2018. Municipal Code. Title 7. Building Regulations. Accessed Dec. 13, 2018. https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code? nodeId=TIT7BURE. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. May 2006. GHD. 2019. Byron Airport Development Project Traffic Impact Analysis Report. June 12, 2019. Mestre Greve Associates. 2011. Noise Assessment for Historic Town Center, City of San Juan Capistrano. January 20, 2011. Project No. 51790. Veneklasen, P.S. 1975. Development of a Model Noise Ordinance. Performed under contract to the California Office of Noise Control, Department of Health, Berkeley, California, March 1975. US Code. 1979. 49 U.S.C. § 47501et seq, 14 CFR part 150. Noise Contours Byron Airport Development Program Noise Analysis FIGURE 3.10-1Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 12/14/2018 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure3.10-2_NoiseMeasurementLocations.mxdOSPREY CTEAGLE CTCL I F T O N C T A R M S T R O N G R D H O L E Y R DFALCON WAYB Y R O N H W YVASCO RDBRUNS RDBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDLT2 ST5 ST2 LT1 ST4 ST1 ST3 Noise Measurement Locations Byron Airport Project SOURCE: USDA 2016; Contra Costa County 2017 0 2,0 001,0 00 Feet Project Boun daryNoise M easurement LocationLong-termShort-term FIGURE 3.10-2 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Land Use Compatibility Criteria Byron Airport Development Program Noise Analysis FIGURE 3.10-3Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Airport Compatibility Criteria Byron Airport Development Program Noise Analysis FIGURE 3.10-4Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-24 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 12/14/2018 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure3.10-5_NoiseModelingLocations.mxdH O L E Y R D BYRON HOT SPRINGS RDB Y R O N H W Y C A M IN O D IA B L O H O F F M A N L N BRUNS RDVASCO RDM1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 Noise Modeling Locations Byron Airport Project SOURCE: USDA 2016; Contra Costa County 2017 0 3,5 001,7 50 Feet Project Boun dary FIGURE 3.10-5 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-26 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Alameda C o u n t y Contra Co s t a C o u n t y Byron Airport Airport Noise Zones Policy Map Figure 4B BYRON AIRPORT POLICIES CHAPTER 4 C:\Users\870tme\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_11792\C83 Byron.COMPATIBILITY-2018.dwg Feb 24, 2021 - 2:24pm60 to 65 dB CNEL 65 to 70 dB CNEL 55 to 60 dB CNEL >70 dB CNEL 160,200 Total Annual Aircraft Operations Prepared By: www.meadhunt.com 1230523Airport Property Line Airport Influence Area County Boundary Existing Runway Future Runway Extension Runway 12/30 = 4,500' Runway 5/23 = 3,000' Runway 12/30 = 1,500' Runway 5/23 = 900' 0 FEET 2500' Urban Limit Line Notes 1.Deed Notice: A Deed Notice shall be required as a condition of approval for any new development located in the 60 dB CNEL noise contour and outside of airport property. Proposed ALUCP Noise Policy Map Byron Airport Development Program Noise Analysis FIGURE 3.10-6Path: Z:\Projects\SOURCE: Mead & Hunt 2021 3.10 – NOISE Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.10-28 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-1 3.11 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH This section describes the existing setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site as it relates to population, housing, and growth; identifies associated regulatory requirements; and evaluates potential impacts. No mitigation measures are included in this section because no potentially significant impacts were identified. 3.11.1 Existing Conditions 3.11.1.1 Regional Setting The project site is located in eastern Contra Costa County (County), which includes the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood. The southeastern area where Byron Airport is located includes the unincorporated communities of Byron and Discovery Bay. The unincorporated eastern part of the County is mainly rural, with the exception of the Town of Discovery Bay (Discovery Bay). The nearest community to the project site is Byron, which had a 2010 population of 1,277 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Population trends for the County, including the eastern County subarea, are shown in Table 3.11-1, Population Growth Trends. Table 3.11-1 Population Growth Trends Area 2010 Population Projected 2020 Population Projected 2030 Population Projected Population Change from 2010 to 2030 East Unincorporated Subarea 43,545 44,000 46,600 +7% Central Unincorporated Subarea 64,306 64,800 66,900 +4% West Unincorporated Subarea 51,934 52,900 55,500 +7% Total Unincorporated 159,785 161,700 169,000 +6% Cities and Towns 889,240 957,400 1,050,900 +18.2% Total County 1,049,025 1,123,500 1,224,400 +16.7% Source: Contra Costa County 2014. Since 2000, the cities in the eastern part of the County have experienced massive population growth. This is particularly true for Brentwood, whose population grew 251% from 2000 to 2017. Most growth in the unincorporated east County area has occurred in Discovery Bay, where subdivisions approved in the 1990s are still being built (Contra Costa County 2014). 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-2 Unemployment for the communities of Byron and Discovery Bay is shown in Table 3.11-2, Unemployment Rate. Note the available Census data likely overstates the unemployment rate, due to the recession of 2008. Employment opportunities in the unincorporated east County area exist mainly in the agriculture, service, and construction sectors. Table 3.11-2 Unemployment Rate Area Name Labor Force Number Unemployed Unemployment Rate Byron CDP 444 32 7.2% Discovery Bay CDP 6,716 725 10.8% Source: Contra Costa County 2014. CDP = Census Designated Place. 3.11.1.2 Project Site One single-family residence is located within the project site, on the parcel proposed for acquisition at 3790 Armstrong Road. Properties adjacent to Byron Airport are used for agriculture or open space, with scattered rural residences. 3.11.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances 3.11.2.1 Federal There are no federal laws or regulations addressing population, employment, or housing that are relevant to the proposed project. 3.11.2.2 State California State Aeronautics Act The purpose of the California State Aeronautics Act pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21001 et seq. “is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress.” The California State Aeronautics Act provides for the creation of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for every county that contains a public-use airport. The purpose of an ALUC, per the California State Aeronautics Act, is to conduct airport land use compatibility planning. ALUCs protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly growth of airports and adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (PUC Sections 21670–21679.5). The primary mechanism used to accomplish airport land use compatibility planning is adoption of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (PUC Sections 21674[c] and 21675). 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-3 3.11.2.3 Local Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted in 2000, is discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan restricts residential development within the Airport Influence Area. Contra Costa County General Plan The County General Plan contains goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to development projects in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Housing Element contains nine goals and 29 policies related to production of new housing, maintenance of existing housing stock, and expansion of housing opportunities (Contra Costa County 2014). Since residential development is not considered a compatible land use on the project site, these goals and poli cies are not applicable to the project or Byron Airport. The County General Plan Land Use Element contains the following goals and policies that relate to economic development and are applicable to the proposed project (Contra Costa County 2005a): Goal 3-D To provide for a range and distribution of land uses that serve all social and economic segments of the county and its subregions. Goal 3-K To develop a balance between job availability and housing availability with consideration given to wage levels, commute distance, and housing affordability. Policy 3-2 Job infill shall be supported and stimulated where the jobs/housing ratio shows an overabundance of housing to jobs. Policy 3-3 As feasible, areas experiencing rapid urban growth shall be developed so as to provide a balance of new residential and employment opportunities. Policy 3-30 A variety of appropriately sized, well-located employment areas shall be planned in order that industrial and commercial activities can contribute to the continued economic welfare of the people of the county and to the stable economic and tax bases of the county and the various cities. Policy 3-41 The continuing orderly development of research facilities, regional offices, and light industrial uses shall be encouraged in designated areas in order to improve the economic base and provide local employment. 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-4 Policy 3-42 Industrial development shall be concentrated in select locations adjacent to existing major transportation corridors and facilities. Policy 3-44 Industries which employ the skills of county residents shall be encouraged to locate within the county. The County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element contains the following policies regarding growth around Byron Airport that are applicable to the proposed project (Contra Costa County 2005b): Policy 5-64 The County shall acquire fee title and/or conservation (development rights) easements to an appropriate amount of buffer land around Byron Airport. Policy 5-65 The buffer land or conservation easements acquired around the airport shall ensure that incompatible uses will not be allowed to locate within the safety zone. Policy 5-66 Establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed. Policy 5-67 Water and sewer services to the airport will be limited to serve only the airport property; utilities will not serve growth on the adjacent properties. Policy 5-68 No residential development or sensitive receptors, e.g., hospitals, schools, shall be allowed within the projected 60 CNEL noise contours for the airport. Policy 5-77 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for Byron Airport: agriculture; open space; low-intensity park and recreation uses; low occupant density public uses; and parking of automobiles. 3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s impacts are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. According to Appendix G, a significant impact related to population and housing would occur if a project would: 1. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-5 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project would include an update to the ALU CP. Therefore, the following additional issue is considered: 3. Would the project result in the substantial displacement of planned housi ng that would necessitate the construction of additional housing elsewhere? 3.11.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.11-1. The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant) The project does not propose new residential land uses. The current and proposed General Plan policies and zoning do not permit residential land uses on the airport property. The project would expand aviation uses and airport-related industrial and commercial development consistent with the Airport Master Plan. Additional employment opportunities at the project site could slightly increase the demand for housing in the region. However, it is anticipated that most of the jobs would be filled by people living in the area, since the eastern County area has a large workforce. As noted in the County General Plan Housing Element, the County provides “bedroom communities” for the workforce of other Bay Area counties (Contra Costa County 2014). New employment opportunities at Byron Airport would help to address the imbalance of jobs and housing in the County, and particularly in the eastern County subregion. Overall, the impact on housing and population growth would be less than significant. Impact 3.11-2. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Less than Significant) No residential uses are located on the airport property. The project would include potential acquisition and demolition of one single-family residence on an adjacent property. This would be a willing sale by the owner and would not displace a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.11-3. The project would not result in the substantial displacement of planned housing that would necessitate the construction of additional housing elsewhere. (No Impact) Consistent with state guidance, ALUCPs generally discourage or prohibit residential units within certain safety zones in Airport Influence Areas. This planning principle is based on the goal of 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-6 protecting the safety of people living near airports and the airplane passengers and crew (by avoiding dense residential areas near air traffic patterns). Local general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances are required by the California State Aeronautics Act to be consistent with the ALUCP. Therefore, planned residential uses and densities should be consistent with the ALUCP. When an ALUCP is amended or updated to reduce allowed residential uses, these changes should be reflected in local plans and ordinances, which could reduce the number of future residential units within the Airport Influence Area. The regional need for housing would then increase demand in areas where residential density is not constrained by the ALUCP. This is commonly referred to as “displacement.” Potential unplanned growth in areas where displacement occurs could result in significant effects to the environment. The current ALUCP for Byron Airport restricts residential development, with no residential uses allowed within the runway protection zone and allowable density increasing as distance from the approach/departure zone increases. The proposed ALUCP update would revise the safety zones to be more consistent with current state guidance, including minor changes in the shape of the zones, and a relaxation of commercial and industrial use restrictions. Residential density standards, however, would not be relaxed. Table 3.11-3 shows the current and proposed residential standards. Table 3.11-3 Comparison of Current and Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Residential Density Current ALUCP Proposed ALUCP Compatibility Zone Average Units per Acre Safety Zone Average Units per Gross Acre A 0 1 0 B1/B3 1a 2 1a B2 0.1 3 0.1 C1 0.2 4 0.2 C2 0.2 5 0.2 D No restriction 6 No restriction ALUCP = Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan a One residential unit may be developed on an existing lot. No residential subdivisions are permitted. As shown, no additional limitations would be placed on residential units in the proposed ALUCP. In addition, no changes to the General Plan land use designations or zoning designations for the properties surrounding Byron Airport are proposed. The areas around the airport are designated “Agricultural Lands” in the General Plan and zoned primarily for agricultural use (see Figure 3.9- 3, Existing Zoning, of Section 3.9 of this Environmental Impact Report). The minimum parcel sizes for agricultural districts are 5 acres (A-2 Zone), 10 acres (A-3 Zone), or 40 acres (A-4 Zone). These zones are as, or more, restrictive than the recommended densities in the ALUCP update. 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-7 Therefore, planned residential densities would not be reduced, and no displacement would occur. There would be no impact related to housing displacement. 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. 3.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project’s impacts related to population, housing, and growth would be less than significant without mitigation. 3.11.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to population and housing would result from a combination of projects that induce population growth. As described in Section 3.11.4, Impacts Analysis, for Impact 3.11-1, the project does not propose residential land uses, and these uses are not permitted on airport property by the current or proposed General Plan policies and zoning. Additional employment opportunities at the project site could slightly increase the demand for housing in the region. However, it is anticipated that most of the jobs produced by the project would be filled by people living in the area, since the eastern part of the County has a large workforce. Residential development within the County has the highest potential to result in population growth in the area. Section 6.2, Housing Needs Assessment, of the County’s General Plan Housing Element identifies the nature and extent of housing needs for current and future residents of the County. This section of the General Plan quantifies the share of the region’s housing growth that has been allocated to the County. This estimate is based on projected household growth, the amount of units needed to account for the normal and appropriate level of vacancies, and the replacement of units lost to conversion or demolition (Contra Costa County 2014). In 2013, the Association of Bay Area Governments completed a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2015–2023, which provides a breakdown of the County’s share of future regional housing needs by four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The RHNA determined that over the 2015–2023 period, the total housing need within the County would be 20,630 new units. Of this, 1,367 new units would be needed within the unincorporated areas of the County (ABAG 2013). The County has already planned for required new units in the County, and is required to identify sites available for new housing development to meet the RHNA. There are no planned developments in the eastern part of the County in excess of the County’s RHNA goals (ABAG 2013; Contra Costa County 2014). Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact related to substantial unplanned population growth. Because the project site would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, the project would not result in 3.11 – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND GROWTH Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.11-8 cumulative impacts related to displacement (see Impact 3.11-2). Additionally, the project would not result in changes to the General Plan land use designations or zoning designations for the properties surrounding Byron Airport. Therefore, the project would not change planned residential densities surrounding the site, and no displacement would occur (see Impact 3.11-3). The proposed project would have no cumulative impacts related to displacement of housing or people. 3.11.8 References Cited ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2013. Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2015–2023. July 18, 2013. Accessed October 2019. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2015-2023_rhna_allocations.pdf. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 3, Land Use Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30913/Ch3-Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 5, Transportation and Circulation Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation-and- Circulation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2014. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 6, Housing Element. Adopted December 2, 2014. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 30916/Ch6-Housing-Element?bidId=. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://factfinder.census.gov/ faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-1 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES This section describes the existing setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site as it relates to public services, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts. No mitigation measures are included in this section because no potentially significant impacts were identified. 3.12.1 Existing Conditions 3.12.1.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Fire protection for the project site and its vicinity is provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). The ECCFPD serves approximately 249 square miles with three fire stations staffed by three firefighters each, for a total district staffing of nine firefighters per day (ECCFPD 2019a). The closest fire station to the project site is Station 59 located approximately 8 miles (driving distance) north on Bixler Road in the Town of Discovery Bay (Discovery Bay) (Aubert 2019). The other two stations are located in Brentwood and Oakley. ECCFPD’s divisions, which include the Fire Suppression/Operations Division, Training/EMS/Safety Division, Public Education Division, Fire Prevention Division, and Hazardous Waste Management Division, are supervised by one fire chief. The largest division within the ECCFPD is the Fire Suppression/Operations Division, which provides emergency medical services, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous conditions response, and all other emergency and non-emergency calls for service. In January 2019, the ECCFPD received 689 calls for service, with an average response time of 8 minutes. Notably, only two of these calls were for major calls for commercial structural fires (ECCFPD 2019b). At this time, the ECCFPD is budgeted for 36 personnel, and 35 of these positions are filled. ECCFPD personnel include one fire chief, three administration personnel, four battalion chiefs, nine captains, nine engineers, and nine firefighters (ECCFPD 2019a, 2019b). The Contra Costa County (County) Airports Division also maintains an aircraft rescue and firefighting truck at Byron Airport. 3.12.1.2 Law Enforcement Law enforcement services at the project site are provided by the County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Patrol Division provides uniformed law enforcement services to greater than 1 million residents over 715 miles in the County. The station house closest to the project site is Delta Station, located at 210 O’Hara Avenue in Oakley. The Delta Station serves the eastern part of the County, including the unincorporated areas around Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood, and the communities of Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, and Discovery Bay. The station includes 23 sworn staff positions, including one lieutenant (station house commander), five sergeants; 15 beat deputies, and two special district deputies. The station also has non-sworn staff consisting of two community services officers and one crime prevention specialist. Non-sworn staff consists of two community 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-2 services officers and one crime prevention specialist (Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office 2019). The Sheriff’s Office also operates the Discovery Bay Annex, staffed by two deputies and one crime prevention specialist, located on Discovery Bay Boulevard. Local funding for the Sheriff’s Office comes from the County’s general fund and special tax assessment areas. 3.12.1.3 Schools The project site is served by the Byron Union School District and Liberty Union High School District. The closest schools to the project site are Byron Elementary and Excelsior Middle, which share a campus approximately 3 miles north (BUSD 2019). 3.12.1.4 Parks and Recreation Facilities The County Public Works Department manages numerous parks and recreation facilities within the County. The County’s parks system also consists of several regional park districts, including the East Bay Regional Park District. The County also includes more than 1,200 miles of hiking trails (Contra Costa County 2019). The East Bay Regional Park District spans Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and contains approximately 121,397 acres in 73 regional parks, including more than 1,250 miles of trails. Recreational opportunities offered in these parks include hiking, biking, picnicking, horseback riding, camping, fishing, boating, golfing, and nature study (EBRPD 2019). There are no general recreation parks in the unincorporated community of Byron, but several general recreation parks are located in Discovery Bay to the north. Additionally, the Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area is 2.5 miles south of the project site. 3.12.1.5 Library Services The County Library provides 26 library branches throughout the County. The project site is served by the Discovery Bay Library Connection, which is a service of the County Library. The library branch closest to the project site is the Brentwood Library, located approximately 7.5 miles north. 3.12.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances This section describes applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulatory guidance, and policies that govern public services in the County. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-3 3.12.2.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Federal Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974/Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 was created to provide federal assistance to states and communities for research and development, education, and training on fire problems ; setting priorities; and identifying possible solutions to problems. The 1974 act was amended in 1992 by the Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992 to require, among other things, automatic sprinkler systems or an equivalent level of safety on buildings having more than 25 employees that have been purchased, constructed, or renovated with federal funds. National Fire Protection Association Codes and Standards The National Fire Protection Association is a membership organization that develops and monitors the use of more than 300 fire codes and standards that have been widely incorporated into state and local fire codes. There are no legislative enforcement mechanisms in place. By working through numerous technical committees, the National Fire Protection Association uses a consensus approach to solve many safety-related issues. The National Fire Protection Association standards are updated every 3 to 5 years (NFPA 2018). State State Fire Regulations The California Fire Code (CFC) is Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which includes regulations concerning building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. It was created by the California Building Standards Commission and is based on the International Fire Code created by the International Code Council. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The CFC and the California Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety (24 CCR Part 9). These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every 3 years and was most recently updated in 2016, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-4 Local Contra Costa County General Plan, Public Facilities/Services Element The County’s General Plan establishes goals and policies related to public services (fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, and others). Most are contained in the Public Facilities/Services Element (Contra Costa County 2005a). Those relevant to the proposed project are listed below under the appropriate topic areas. The following are from the Public Facilities/Services Element (Contra Costa County 2005a): Goal 7-Y To ensure a high standard of fire protection, emergency, and medical response services for all citizens and properties throughout Contra Costa County. Goal 7-Z To reduce the severity of structural fires and minimize overall fire loss. Goal 7-AA To incorporate requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning and approval process. Goal 7-AD To provide special fire protection for high-risk land uses and structures. Policy 7-62 The County shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due station, and a minimum of 3 firefighters to be maintained in all central business district (CBD), urban, and suburban areas. Policy 7-64 New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. Policy 7-71 A set of special fire protection and prevention requirements shall be developed for inclusion in development standards applied to hillside, open space, and rural area development. Policy 7-72 Special fire protection measures shall be required in high-risk uses (e.g., mid-rise and high-rise buildings, and those developments in which hazardous materials are used and/or stored) as conditions of approval or else be available by the district prior to approval. Policy 7-80 Wildland fire prevention activities and programs such as controlled burning, fuel removal, establishment of fire roads, fuel breaks and water supply, shall be encouraged to reduce wildland fire hazards. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-5 Policy 7-81 All structures located in Hazardous Fire Areas, as defined in the Uniform Fire Code, shall be constructed with fire-resistant exterior materials, such as fire safe roofing, and their surroundings are to be irrigated and landscaped with fire-resistant plants, consistent with drought resistance and water conservation policies. 3.12.2.2 Law Enforcement Federal There are no federal regulations relevant to law enforcement. State There are no state regulations relevant to law enforcement. Local Contra Costa County General Plan, Public Facilities/Services Element Goal 7-V To provide a high standard of police protection services for all citizens and properties throughout Contra Costa County. Goal 7-W To incorporate police protection standards and requirements into the land use planning process. Policy 7-57 A sheriff facil ity standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorp orated area of the County . Policy 7-60 Levels of service above the countywide standard requested by unincorporated communities shall be provided through the creation of a County Service Area or other special governmental unit. 3.12.2.3 Schools Federal There are no federal regulations relevant to schools. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-6 State California Education Code Section 17620 and Senate Bill 50 California Senate Bill 50, the School Facilities Act of 1998, and the bond procedures under Proposition 1A of 1998 amended state law to reform school facilities financing and to set the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards for mitigation for school facilities. As amended by Senate Bill 50, California Education Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to levy a fee against new development, including residential and non-residential, within the school district to fund construction, reconstruction, and/or modernization of school facilities. The school district must demonstrate the need for school construction or reconstruction, and demonstrate that the fee does not exceed the cost of construction or reconstruction necessary to meet this need. Senate Bill 50 also amended California Government Code Sections 65966–65968 to prohibit a local agency from either denying approval of a land use project because of inadequate school facilities or imposing school impact mitigation measures other than the designated fees provided for in the Education Code. However, in any year that a proposed statewide bond measure for K– 12 school facilities fails, Senate Bill 50 would permit a local agency to deny a development project requiring legislative approval on the basis of inadequate school facilities. Local Contra Costa County General Plan, Public Facilities/Services Element Goal 7-AO To assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and college facilities in the County. Policy 7-136 The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve development. Policy 7-142 Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assisted by coordinating review of new development with school districts the cities and other service providers through the Growth Management Program, the environmental review process, and other means. 3.12.2.4 Parks and Recreation Facilities Federal There are no federal regulations relevant to parks and recreation facilities. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-7 State Quimby Act In 1975, the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477, as amended in 1982) granted cities and counties authority to pass ordinances requiring developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay in-lieu fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of their developments. Special districts must work with cities and counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fees. The fees must be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide park and recreation services to the affected community. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for operation and maintenance of park facilities. Local Contra Costa County General Plan, Open Space Element The County’s General Plan establishes goals and policies related to parks. These are contained in the Open Space Element (Contra Costa County 2005b). Those relevant to the project are as follows: Goal 9-H To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designed, park and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents. Goal 9-I To develop a system of interconnected bicycle, pedestrian, and riding trails and paths suitable for both active recreational use and transportation/circulation. Goal 9-J To promote active and passive recreational enjoyment of the County’s physical amenities for the continued health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County. Goal 9-K To achieve a level of park facilities of four acres per 1,000 population. Policy 9-33 A well-balanced distribution of local parks, based on character and intensity of present and planned residential development and future recreation needs, shall be preserved. Policy 9-40 Recreational activity shall be distributed and managed according to an area’s carrying capacity, with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impacts, such as conflict between uses and trespass. At the same time, the regional importance of each area's recreation resources shall be recognized. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-8 Policy 9-r Require that new development meet the park standards and criteria included in the Growth Management Program and set forth in Table 9-1 [of the General Plan]. Ensure that credit for the park dedication ordinance requirements be given for private recreation facilities only after a finding has been adopted that the facilities will be open to and serve the public. 3.12.2.5 Library Services Federal There are no federal regulations relevant to library services. State There are no state regulations relevant to library services. Local Contra Costa County General Plan, Public Facilities/Services Element Goal 7-AW To assure that high quality civic, medical, and other community facilities are provided to meet the broad range of needs within unincorporated areas of the County. Policy 7-159 Services provided by the County Library System shall be maintained and improved by providing adequate funding for ongoing operations, and by providing new library facilities to meet the needs of County residents, particularly in growing areas where library service standards are not being met. 3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate impacts to public services are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact related to public services would occur if a project would: 1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or 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 public services: a. Fire protection. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-9 b. Police protection. c. Schools. d. Parks. e. Other public facilities. 3.12.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.12-1 The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 public services. (Less than Significant) Fire Protection The ECCFPD provides fire protection services and emergency medical services to approximately 249 square miles within the County, including the project site. The ECCFPD has three fire stations staffed by three firefighters, for a total district staffing of nine firefighters per day. In addition, the ECCFPD is served by one fire chief, three administration personnel, four battalion chiefs, nine captains, and nine engineers (ECCFPD 2019a, 2019b). ECCFPD’s Master Plan estimates that nine stations would be needed to provide coverage to ECCFPD’s citizens and businesses in the long term (ECCFPD 2016). Additionally, the ECCFPD strictly enforces the County Fire Code (the California Fire Code with County-specific amendments), which provides strict requirements for fire suppression systems, use of fire-resistant building materials, and use of visible address signage. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 59, which is located approximately 8 miles to the north. The project site consists of four separate development areas: aviation, non-aviation, low-intensity use, and habitat management. Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure, hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel, and businesses that rely on aviation. Approximately 46.6 acres would support non-aviation uses, which includes commercial and light-industrial uses that are compatible with airport operations and would benefit from being located at an airport. Low-intensity-use areas and habitat management lands would not include any buildings or structures. Section 3.11, Population, Housing, and Growth, of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) determined that the proposed project would not cause substantial population growth within the area, since the project would not include new residential land uses and would not increase demand for housing in the region. Most calls for service are residential calls, including emergency medical service (ECCFPD 2019b). Project elements would comply with federal, state, and local requirements 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-10 regarding fire protection, including California Government Code Section 51182 and Public Resources Code Section 4291, which would reduce fire hazards to buildings and structures. Byron Airport maintains its own water system for fire suppression, which would be expanded prior to any airport- related industrial or commercial development. An ECCFPD study concluded that to adequately provide service to eastern Contra Costa County, additional staff and facilities would be required (ECCFPD 2016). In particular, additional stations should be located in Discovery Bay and Brentwood. The most recent Municipal Service Review prepared by the County Local Agency Formation Commission noted that the primary hurdles to achieving better levels of service were a lack of an adequate property tax base and a lack of alternative funding sources (Contra Costa County LAFCO 2016). The proposed project would provide needed tax revenue (with private airport-related development on County property). New development on site would also meet current fire codes, reducing additional demand for fire protection services. Additional tax revenues would assist with funding of ECCFPD staff and facilities. The potential construction and expansion of ECCFPD facilities would occur within the urban areas of Discovery Bay and Brentwood. Impacts of such development would be consistent with the County General Plan and Brentwood General Plan. There is no substantial evidence that the construction of future planned fire facilities would have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. Police Protection The County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services within the County. The nearest County Sheriff’s station to the project site is Delta Station, located approximately 12.2 miles northwest in Oakley. Although the project would expand aviation and non-aviation uses at the site, which would increase the number of people on the site, the project would not include residential uses that would cause substantial population growth in the County. Furthermore, the project would primarily employ people residing in the region and would not substantially increase demand for housing or result in population growth (see Section 3.11 of this EIR). Population is used by the Sheriff’s Office to determine the need for new or expanded facilities (General Plan Policy 7-57; Contra Costa County 2005a). The project is not expected to increase demand for police protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. Schools The project would not include residential uses. Although additional employment opportunities at the project site could induce slight population growth in the eastern part of the County, it is anticipated that most of the jobs would be filled by people already living in the area, since the region has a large workforce. Nevertheless, private development at the project site would pay 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-11 impact fees to the Byron Union School District and Liberty Union High School District. These fees are intended to mitigate for this type of development. Impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant. Parks The County Public Works Department provides park and recreational services to the unincorporated County, including the project site. The project would not involve development of residential uses or result in a direct or indirect population growth that would, in turn, increase demand on regional parks and open spaces. Therefore, impacts related to parks and recreational resources would be less than significant. Library Facilities The County Library provides library services to the project site. The proposed project would not involve development of residential uses, and would not result in a direct or indirect population growth that would, in turn, increase demand on regional libraries. Therefore, impacts related to libraries facilities would be less than significant. 3.12.5 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. 3.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation The project’s impacts related to public services would be less than significant without mitigation. 3.12.7 Cumulative Impacts The context for cumulative service impacts is the eastern part of the County and growth evaluated in the County General Plan. The project would not include residential uses, and would therefore not contribute to a substantial increase in population that would increase demands for schools, parks and recreation facilities, or library facilities. The project would allow for aviation and non- aviation uses that would require fire and police protection for property and employees. The County General Plan states that new stations would be required in the County and additional equipment would be required at existing stations to maintain an acceptable level of service for fire protection (Contra Costa County 2005a). Furthermore, the County General Plan EIR concluded that build- out of the General Plan would result in the need for increased police protection staff and equipment to maintain acceptable service ratios (Contra Costa County 2005c). The County General Plan includes policies to address the effects of growth, including a requirement that new development pay its fair share of costs for new fire and police protection facilities and services. The General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of the General Plan policies, the impacts of 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-12 expanded fire and police protection facilities would be less than significant (Contra Costa County 2005c). The proposed project would not contribute to growth inconsistent with the General Plan, and would not contribute to a cumulative impact that is not addressed by existing policies. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3.12.8 References Cited Aubert, Steven. 2019. Personal Communication (Brian Grattidge, telephone call). East Contra Costa County Fire Department. Fire Marshall. May 28, 2019. BUSD (Byron Unified School District). 2019. District School Sites. https://www.byronunionschooldistrict.us/Districtschools. Accessed October 18, 2019. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30917/Ch7-Public-Facilities_ Services-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 9, Open Space Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30919/Ch9-Open-Space-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005c. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020 Environmental Impact Report. Certified January 18, 2005. Contra Costa County. 2019. “Parks and Recreation: Overview.” Accessed March 8, 2019. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/446/Parks-and-Recreation. Contra Costa County LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission). 2016. EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates. Approved August 10, 2016. Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. 2019. “Delta Station.” Accessed March 8, 2019. http://www.cocosheriff.org/bureaus/field_operations/patrol/delta.htm. EBRPD (East Bay Regional Park District). 2019. “About Us.” Accessed March 8, 2019. https://www.ebparks.org/about/default.htm. ECCFPD (East Contra Costa Fire Protection District). 2016. Deployment Performance and Headquarters Adequacy Study. Prepared by CityGate and ECCFPD. June 15, 2016. ECCFPD. 2019a. “Fire Chief’s Message.” Accessed March 8, 2019. https://www.eccfpd.org/ fire-chief-s-message. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-13 ECCFPD. 2019b. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District: Operational Report for January 2019. Accessed March 8, 2019. https://www.eccfpd.org/files/6dbf6d2d3/ECCFPD+ Operational+Report+for+January+2019.pdf. NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2018. An Introduction to the NFPA Standards Development Process. 3.12 – PUBLIC SERVICES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.12-14 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-1 3.13 TRANSPORTATION This section describes the existing transportation setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (April 2021). A complete copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis Report is included as Appendix H of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The TIA for the project has been prepared per Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) (June 2020) which establishes the approach and methodology to evaluate project impacts on the County’s transportation system using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for CEQA and the level of service (LOS) metric for General Plan consistency requirements. This section uses VMT as the basis for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. The project’s effects on LOS are included in the TIA (Appendix H) for the proposed project. 3.13.1 Transportation Setting This section describes the existing transportation network in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems. Roadway System Roadway characteristics for key vicinity roads are described below. The regional roadway network is shown in Figure 3.13-1. Interstate 205 (I-205) is an east-west divided state highway that is generally 8 lanes and is located between Interstate 5 to the east, to Interstate 580 to the west. I-205 is in San Joaquin County and runs near Lathrop on the east and near Tracy on the west. The posted speed limit is 65 MPH and primary interchanges within the vicinity of the project site are located at Mountain House Parkway and E Eleventh Street. Vasco Road is a north-south, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from John Marsh Highway (CA 4) from the north to Contra Costa County limits to the south. The posted speed limit is 55 MPH. There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Vasco Road is designated as an Expressway in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. State Route 4 (SR-4) is an east-west, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Marsh Creek Road to the west, to Byron Highway to the east. SR-4 then extends onto Byron Highway south of Marsh Creek Road for approximately one-half mile, at which point it splits from Byron 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-2 Highway and continues towards the Contra Costa County limits to the east. SR-4 is a 4-lane undivided roadway when overlapping the one-half mile segment of Byron Highway. The posted speed limit is 50 MPH along the Marsh Creek Road/State Route 4 segment west of Byron Highway, and 55 MPH along the State Route 4 segment east of Byron Highway. There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. The Marsh Creek Road/State Route 4 roadway segment is designated as an Expressway, and the State Route 4 roadway segment east of Byron Highway is designated an Arterial road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. Marsh Creek Road is an east-west, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Clayton City limits to the west, to Byron Highway to the east. East of Vasco Road, Marsh Creek Road becomes SR-4 until its junction with Byron Highway. The posted speed limit is generally 50 MPH along the segment of Marsh Creek Road, west of its intersection with Byron Highway . There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. West of Vasco Road, Marsh Creek Road is designated an Arterial road, whereas east of Vasco Road, the Marsh Creek/State Route 4 roadway segment is designated as an Expressway in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. Byron Highway is a north-south, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Delta Road to the north to San Joaquin County to the south/southeast. Within San Joaquin County, Byron Highway becomes Byron Bethany Road which in turn becomes Byron Road at the San Joaquin County line. The posted speed limits within the limits of Byron’s census designated place (CDP) boundary is generally 35 MPH; outside of the CDP boundary, posted speed limits generally range between 45 and 55 MPH. There are minimal sections of paved sidewalk along both sides of the roadway within both Byron and Tracy (San Joaquin County) city limits. There are no paved sidewalks outside of city limits, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Byron Highway is designated as an Arterial road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan and as a Principal Arterial (and a Minor Arterial when Byron Highway becomes Byron Road) in Figure TM-1 of the San Joaquin County Mobility Element. Byron Highway is also designated as County Route J4. Camino Diablo is an east-west, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, connecting Byron Highway to the east, and Marsh Creek Road to the west. East of Byron Highway, Camino Diablo extends east and ends at a private road serving mostly residential and rural properties. The posted speed ranges from 25 MPH to 35 MPH within the unincorporated, CDP of Byron and increases to 50 MPH west of Byron. There are small sections of paved sidewalk along Camino Diablo between Byron Highway and Holway Drive, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Camino Diablo is designated as an Arterial road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-3 Walnut Boulevard is a north-south, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Brentwood City limits to the north, to Camino Diablo to the south. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway (until Brentwood City limits are reached), and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Walnut Boulevard is designated as an Arterial road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. Mountain House Parkway is a north-south, 6-lane divided roadway within the study area, extending from Byron Highway to the north, to W Schulte Road to the south. South of W Schulte Road, Mountain House Parkway becomes Patterson Pass Road. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. There are small sections of paved sidewalk along both sides of the road at the I-205 ramps as well as longer sections of paved sidewalk along the west side of the roadway north of W Grant Line Road. Mountain House Parkway is designated as a Minor Arterial in Figure TM-1 of the San Joaquin County Mobility Element. Byron Hot Springs Road is a north-south, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Byron Highway to the north, and Holey Road to the south. There is no posted speed limit. There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Bryon Hot Springs Road is designated as a Collector road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. Holey Road is an east-west, 2-lane undivided roadway within the study area, extending from Byron Hot Springs Road to the west, to Byron Highway to the east. There is no posted speed limit. There are no paved sidewalks along either side of the roadway, and parking is generally not permitted along either side of the roadway. Holey Road is designated as a Coll ector road in the Contra Costa County General Plan Roadway Network Plan. Transit System Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta) Tri Delta Transit serves the eastern parts of Contra Costa County (CCTA 2019). However, there are no transit systems near the project site. The nearest Tri Delta Transit bus service is located north of the project area in the City of Brentwood. Routes 385, 391 and 393 operate and provide service at the nearest bus stop. Route 385 operates between Brentwood Park and Ride and Antioch BART Station via Slatten Ranch Shopping Center. The service is currently available on weekdays only at a frequency of approximately an hour throughout the day. Route 391 operates between Brentwood Park & Ride and Pittsburg Center Station. The service is currently available on weekdays only at a variable frequency between 25 minutes to an hour throughout the day. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-4 Route 393 operates between Brentwood Park & Ride and Antioch BART Station. The service is currently available on weekends only at a frequency of approximately an hour throughout the day. TRACER The City of Tracy offers seven fixed bus routes. Routes A, B, and F operate along Grant Line road; however, no routes extend past the City limits to service areas near the project site. The nearest passenger train service, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Amtrak, is located in the City of Antioch to the north. There are no other transit system facilities that service the project area. Figure 3.13.2 identifies the nearest transit facilities within the study area. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) (CCTA 2018) identifies the following bicycle facility classifications and descriptions: • Shared-Use Path (Class I Bikeway) – Bike paths provide a completely separate right of way that is designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal crossflow traffic. • Bike Lane (Class II Bikeway) – Using special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage, bike lanes provide designated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. • Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway) – Increase separations through painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections). • Bike Route (Class III bikeway) – Provide enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists through signage, sharrow striping, and/or traffic calming treatments, and provide continuity to a bikeway network. • Bicycle Boulevards (Class III Bikeway) – Further enhanced bike routes by encouraging slower speeds and discouraging non-local vehicle traffic using traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and speed tables. • Protected Bikeway (Class IV Bikeway) – Referred to as cycle tracks or separated bikeways, these are set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles and physically separated from vehicle traffic with vertical separation, including grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking. In addition to the above classifications, the CBPP further categorizes existing and proposed bicycle facilities through a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis, which assigns a LTS score to the bicycle 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-5 facility depending on the perceived stress of the cyclist. A brief description of each LTS score is provided below, as defined in the CBPP. Low traffic stress correlates with a LTS score of 1 or 2, and high traffic stress correlates with a LTS score of 3 or 4. • LTS 1 – Physically separated from traffic or low-volume, mixed-flow traffic at 25 mph or less; bike lanes are six-feet wide or more; • LTS 2 – Bicycle lanes are 5.5-feet wide or less, next to 30 mph auto traffic; unsignalized crossings of up to five lanes at 30 mph; • LTS 3 – Bicycle lanes next to 35 mph auto traffic, or mixed-flow traffic at 30 mph or less; • LTS 4 – No dedicated bicycle facilities; traffic speeds 40 mph or more. In the study area, Marsh Creek Trail, a shared-use path (Class I Bikeway), runs north of Concord Avenue from Creek Road to Central Boulevard, and is approximately 10 miles northwest from the project site. Marsh Creek Trail bikeway can be accessed via Marsh Creek Road, south of Concord Avenue. Currently, there are no bicycle facilities along Marsh Creek Road; however, the CBPP has planned bicycle facilities for Byron Highway, Camino Diablo, Bixler Road, Byer Road, and SR-4. Currently, these roadways do not have designated bicycle facilities. Figure 3.13-2, identifies existing and planned regional bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. Local Bicycle Network in the County is shown on Figure 3.13-3. Per CBPP, Class II bicycle lanes are proposed along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road from project site to Byron Highway. The local bicycle network would connect to the low-stress bikeway (Class II) proposed along Byron Highway. The San Joaquin County Bicycle Master Plan also identifies similar bicycle facilities to those noted above, including Class I Shared Use Paths, Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes, and Class III Bicycle Routes (San Joaquin County 2020). The Mountain House community area includes several Class III Bicycles Routes; however, no other San Joaquin County bicycle or pedestrian facilities are located near the project site. Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities within the project vicinity. Due to the lack of connectivity and significant development in the immediate project vicinity, pedestrian activity is very light. Long-range planning for Byron Highway includes possible pedestrian facilities in terms of sidewalks and a Class I multi-use path (Appendix H). 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-6 3.13.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal Federal Aviation Administration The Federal Aviation Administration’s primary role is to promote aviation safety and control the use of airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration enforces safety standards and investigates and corrects violations as appropriate. Federal regulations applicable to compatible land use include Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77: Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, and 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. State Senate Bill 743 On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline the review under the CEQA process for several categories of development projects including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas and to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 adds Chapter 2.7: Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects to the CEQA Statute (Public Resources Code Section 21099). Section 21099(d)(1) provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. In addition, SB 743 mandates that alternative metric(s) for determining impacts relative to transportation shall be developed to replace the use of LOS in CEQA documents. In the past, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments, which is often measured using LOS. Mitigation for impacts on vehicular delay often involves increasing capacity such as widening a roadway or the size of an intersection, which in turn encourages more vehicular travel and greater pollutant emissions. Additionally, improvements to increase vehicular capacity can often discourage alternative forms of transportation such as biking and walking. SB 743 directed the OPR to develop an alternative metric(s) for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA document. The alternative shall promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic- related air pollution, promoting the development of multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Under SB 743, it was anticipated that the focus of transportation analysis will shift from vehicle delay to VMT within transit-priority areas (i.e., areas well served by transit). 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-7 Pursuant to SB 743, OPR released the draft revised CEQA Guidelines in November 2017, recommending the use of VMT for analyzing transportation impacts for all projects. Additionally, OPR released Updates to Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, to provide guidance on VMT analysis. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in screening out projects from VMT analysis and selecting a significance threshold that may be appropriate for their particular jurisdictions. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance ... recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). In December 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to add new Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, that describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using the VMT methodology. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) is divided into four subdivisions as follows: 1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. 2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. 3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. 4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-8 reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The OPR’s regulatory text indicated that a public agency may immediately commence implementation of the new transportation impact guidelines, and that the guidelines must be implemented statewide by July 1, 2020. However, the OPR Technical Advisory allows local agencies to retain their congestion-based LOS standards in general plans and for project planning purposes. As mentioned in the County’s TAG, use of both metrics is required in a project’s transportation analyses. Therefore, this EIR relies on VMT as the basis for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. The project’s LOS effects have been documented in the TIA prepared by Dudek for the proposed project. California Department of Transportation As the owner and operator of the State Highway System, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) implements established state planning priorities in all functional plans, programs, and activities. Caltrans has the responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed local land use planning and development may impact state highway facilities. To comply with SB 743 implementation, the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide (May 2020), replaced the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002). Per the 2020 Transportation Impact Study Guide, Caltrans’ primary review focus is VMT, replacing LOS as the metric used in CEQA transportation analyses. Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds and guidance on methods of VMT assessment found in OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018). In addition to VMT, Caltrans has developed an Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (July 2020) which may request a targeted operational and safety analysis to address a specific geometric or operational issue related to the State Highway System and connections with the State Highway System (Caltrans 2020). To comply with this requirement, an assessment of off-ramp queuing at freeway ramps serving the project has been included in the EIR. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-9 Local Contra Costa County General Plan The purpose of the Contra Costa County General Plan is to express the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures, which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources. The various elements or chapters of the plan are intended to provide objectives, principles, and standards to decision-making bodies in the County, as well as numerous other public agencies, that will be making decisions about the development of private and public lands and the locations and extent of improvements such as transportation infrastructure (CCTA TAG 2020). The Growth Management Element and the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan are described below. i. Growth Management Element In November 2004, Contra Costa voters renewed the original Measure C, Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program (GMP), a 0.5% sales tax to fund transportation projects and programs, with a new ballot measure called Measure J. Measure J funds the County’s GMP, which plans for cooperative growth management among jurisdictions within the County and sets performance standards. Measure J requires local jurisdictions to be in compliance with the GMP by adopting a Growth Management Element (GME); adopting a local and regional Development Mitigation Program; participating in an on-going cooperative, multijurisdictional planning process; addressing housing options; developing a 5-year capital improvement program; adopting a Transportation Systems Management Ordinance or Resolution; and adopting a voter- approved urban limit line. A key principle for the GMP is that growth-inducing development within the County should be required to pay for transportation facilities to meet the demands resulting from that growth. To ensure this, the CCTA has created a regional Development Mitigation Program that requires transportation fees to be paid by growth-inducing development to fund transportation improvements. Furthermore, the Growth Management Implementation Guide of the GMP establishes guidelines for review of General Plan amendments to ensure compliance with the cooperative planning requirements of Measure J. The GMP also provides performance standards to evaluate streets and public services associated with projects and General Plan amendments. ii. Transportation and Circulation Element The County’s Transportation and Circulation Element (“TCE”) establishes transportation goals, policies, and specific implementation measures to assure that the transportation system of the County will have adequate capacity to efficiently serve planned growth in Contra Costa County. The intention of the TCE is to provide a plan and implementing measures for an integrated, multi-modal 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-10 transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the County and provide for the transport of goods and services throughout Contra Costa County (CCTA TAG 2020). Relevant General Plan policies were considered in the establishment of thresholds of significance (Section 3.13.3, Thresholds of Significance) for the proposed project. These policies are as follows: Circulation Phasing and Coordination 5-2 Appropriately planned circulation system components shall be provided to accommodate development compatible with policies identified in the Land Use Element. 5-3 Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi-public rights of way where feasible. 5-4 Development shall be allowed only when transportation performance criteria are met and necessary facilities and/or programs are in place or committed to be developed within a specified period of time. 5-5 Right of way shall be preserved to meet requirements of the Circulation Element and to serve future urban areas indicated in the Land Use Element. Circulation Safety, Convenience and Efficiency 5-7 Through-traffic along arterials shall be improved by minimizing the number of new intersecting streets and driveways; and, when feasible, by consolidating existing street and driveway intersections. 5-8 Access points on arterials and collectors shall be minimized. 5-9 Existing circulation facilities shall be improved and maintained by eliminating structural and geometric design deficiencies. 5-11 The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non -motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. 5-13 The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-11 5-14 Physical conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall be minimized. 5-16 Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas. 5-17 Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development project design. 5-20 New development (including redevelopment and rehabilitation projects) shall contribute funds and/or institute programs to reduce parking demand and/or provide adequate parking. 5-21 New development shall contribute funds and/or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. Alternative Transportation/Circulation Systems 5-23 All efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged. 5-24 Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike, and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. 5-n Enforce County TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Ordinances consistent with State law and encourage neighboring jurisdictions to adopt similar ordinances. 5-ak Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bike ways in the vicinity of schools and other public facilities and in commercial areas and provide convenient access to bus routes. 5-al Ensure that pedestrian connectivity is preserved or enhanced in new developments by providing short, direct pedestrian connections between land uses and to building entrances. 5-as Provide sidewalks with a clear path wide enough to accommodate anticipated pedestrian use and wheelchairs, baby strollers or similar devices. This area clear zone must be free of street furniture, signposts, utility poles or any other obstruction. 5-at Traffic calming measures should be designed so they improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in residential neighborhoods and commercial districts as well as strategic corridors between them that help form the comprehensive bicycle network. 5-39 Reduce conflicts among motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 5-aw Use curb extensions and pedestrian islands and other strategies to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-12 5-ax Use traffic control devices such as signs, signals, or lights to warn motorists that pedestrians or bicyclists are in the roadway. 5-ay Provide buffers between roads and sidewalks utilizing planter strips or buffer zones that provide streetscape improvements. 5-be Incorporate sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian cut-throughs, or other bicycle pedestrian improvements into new projects. Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program The Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (“CRIPP”) is a programming document for the funding of capital road improvement projects within Contra Costa County. It includes estimated project costs, funding source information, and scheduling information for known potential projects within the next seven fiscal years. It also includes revenue projections and a summary of estimated project-related expenditures for each funding source (CCTA TAG 2020). County of Contra Costa has identified several proposed (funded and unfunded) projects in the CRIPP for funding year (FY) 2020/21 and FY 2026/27 and some of those improvements have been referenced as potential improvements in the proposed project’s TIA. Complete Streets On July 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted Resolution No. 2016/374 approving the Complete Streets Policy of Contra Costa County. This Policy expanded on a 2008 General Plan amendment to support Complete Streets policies (CCTA TAG 2020). The County has established Complete Streets Principles, Implementation measures, and Exceptions that may apply to plans or projects from incorporating Complete Streets design elements. Vision Zero Contra Costa County The County is developing a Vision Zero Plan (Plan) to address severe and fatal collisions on County- owned roadways. The Plan, to be adopted by the BOS this year or next, would include strategies moving the County towards the goal of zero fatalities and major injury collisions on its roadway network. The strategies outlined in the Plan include engineering, education, and/or enforcement measures, which implement the primary goals such as meeting requirements for developing a Local Road Safety Program, to eliminate fatal and serious injury collisions, prioritize infrastructure projects that are in alignment with the Vision Zero Program, developing Vision Zero campaign, eliminate high-risk behavior through Education and Enforcement, and fostering relationship among various agencies related to the Vision Zero Program. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-13 County Ordinance Code The County Ordinance Code is the implementation tool of the General Plan and contains specific provisions that address on and off-site circulation with the intent of preserving and improving the quality and efficiency of the County transportation system. All land development proposals must demonstrate compliance with these provisions. i. Section 74-04.006 – Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging In 2015, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2015-22 amending the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code to establish electric vehicle parking and charging station building standards for the unincorporated County. County Code Section 74-4.006 - Amendments to CGBSC – Electric Vehicle Charging standards apply to residential (single and multi-family) and non-residential development. ii. Chapter 82-16 – Off-Street Parking The County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance provides a unified set of standards for off-street vehicle and bicycle parking to meet the needs of persons employed at, or making use of, each land use during peak hours of parking needs. It is intended to encourage the use of features, design strategies, materials, products, and best construction practices that preserve natural resources, conserve water and energy, and maximize energy efficiency in the design of parking facilities and also intended to balance the needs of pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles, and public transportation. iii. Chapter 82-32 – Transportation Demand Management The County’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance intends to further the transportation goals of the County General Plan, the Measure J Growth Management Program, Contra Costa County's Congestion Management Program, and the Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Its purpose is to implement the provisions of the General Plan to promote a more balanced transportation system that takes advantage of all modes of transportation by: • Incorporating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access into improvements proposed in development applications; • Incorporating the overall intent and purpose of this chapter into the land use review and planning process; • Allowing requests for reductions in the off-street parking requirements for residential or nonresidential projects that have a conceptual TDM Program; • Providing information to residents on opportunities for walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transit. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-14 The County TDM Ordinance applies to: • Residential projects containing thirteen or more dwelling units; and • Any non-residential or mixed-use development proposal. Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCTA comprises of representation from all 19 cities, the unincorporated County, and the transit agencies, and is responsible for ensuring the completion of a wide variety of projects that were included in the original Measure C Expenditure Plan and the Measure J (approved by Contra Costa voters in November 2004) Expenditure Plan. CCTA works cooperatively with local agencies on funding and implementation of transportation projects. i. Final 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan On September 20, 2017, the CCTA adopted the Final 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan Update, which provides goals, strategies, projects, and actions for achieving and maintaining a balanced and functional transportation system within the County while considering land use (CCTA 2017c). In addition, as part of the Countywide Transportation Plan, the regional transportation planning committees updated their Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans). These Action Plans establish quantitative service objectives to assess the conditions of the transportation system and impacts of land use decisions. The Action Plans help local jurisdictions meet the requirement of the Measure J GMP that requires local jurisdictions to participate in a cooperative, multijurisdictional planning process. ii. CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) builds on and expands the goals, policies and strategies of the Countywide Transportation Plan. Both plans set goals for increasing walking and bicycling and identify actions the Authority and its partners should take to achieve them. Within the project vicinity, the County has goals for bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are contained in the CBPP. The CBPP was originally adopted in 2003 and most recently updated in 2018. The CBPP supports the Countywide Transportation Plan by adding goals, policies, and strategies specifically focused on increasing walking and bicycling in the County (CCTA 2018). Facilities planned within the CBPP that are located near the project site are shown in Figure 3.13-2 and Figure 3.13-3. iii. CCTA Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance: In accordance with Measure J requirements, the most recent update of the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (ECAP) was adopted in September 2017. The ECAP identifies routes of regional 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-15 significance within eastern Contra Costa County, establishes multimodal transportation service objectives for these routes, and establishes actions for achieving those objectives (TRANSPLAN 2017). The purpose of the ECAP is to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to establish overarching goals; set integrated performance measures (i.e., multimodal transportation service objectives) for designated “Routes of Regional Significance”; and outline a set of projects, programs, measures, and actions that will support achievement of the multimodal transportation service objectives. Furthermore, the ECAP creates a Development Mitigation Program to reduce the impacts of projects on the transportation system. Within the project vicinity, Routes of Regional Significance are Byron Highway south of SR-4, Camino Diablo Road west of Vasco Road, SR-4, and Vasco Road. In addition, the planned TriLink (see subheading below) is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. iv. 2017 Contra Costa County Priority Development Area Strategy The 2017 Contra Costa County PDA Strategy was adopted on May 17, 2017. The PDA Strategy defines the criteria for selecting projects that support Plan Bay Area, the Regional Transportation Plan developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (CCTA 2017b). PDAs are prioritized for development by local city or county governments. The PDA Strategy assists the CCTA by providing guidelines for how the CCTA will support the development of PDAs in the County. The PDA Strategy provides strategies to encourage and support development within PDAs in the County. Along with this, the PDA Strategy identifies transportation and non-transportation infrastructure needed to support development of designated PDAs, and coordinates investment in projects that support and encourage development of PDAs for the maintenance and improvement of the broader transportation system. Each update of the PDA Strategy documents progress made since the previous update and includes transportation investments that are currently being targeted to promote housing and job growth in areas with multimodal transportation options. v. TriLink (SR-239) Feasibility Study Final Report SR-239 was first identified in 1959 as a legislatively approved, but unconstructed, route in the California state highway system. SR-239 would act as a potential multimodal link between SR-4 near Brentwood and I-205 west of Tracy in San Joaquin County. Although the route has not been adopted by the California Transportation Commission, the County completed the TriLink Feasibility Study Final Report on May 30, 2014, to evaluate the feasibility of the corridor (CCTA 2014). In August 2015, a Project Study Report was prepared to establish the range of potential alternatives, and gain approval for formal studies and environmental documentation. SR-239 could potentially improve access for those who live and work in the region and could support inter- regional goods movement that would create jobs locally (Caltrans 2015b). The TriLink proposal 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-16 includes the Vasco–Byron Connector, which would connect Vasco Road to Byron Highway along the Armstrong Road alignment north of Byron Airport. Since the alignment and funding of the TriLink project has not been finalized, the transportation analysis provided in the Project’s TIA (VMT and LOS) do not assume any of the roadway facilities or improvements associated with the TriLink project. vi. Travel Demand Model Both the Measure C Growth Management Program (GMP) and the State congestion management legislation require CCTA to develop and maintain a travel demand model. These models use information on current and future population and employment, transit ridership, expected roadway improvements, and observed travel behavior to forecast traffic on the regional transportation system. The travel demand model is used to analyze the effects of new development and changes in their general plans, analyze the effects on new transportation improvements and to analyze the effects of its plans and programs, including the CTP and the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Consistent with these requirements, the CCTA model was used in the proposed project’s VMT and LOS analyses. 3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s impacts to traffic and circulation are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to traffic and circulation would occur if the project would: 1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. 2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). 3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 4. Result in inadequate emergency access. Program, Plan, Ordinance and Policy The programs, plans, ordinance, and policies listed in Section 3.13.1 were analyzed for their applicability to the proposed project under Threshold 1. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-17 Vehicle Miles Traveled The Updated CEQA Guidelines state that “…generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts…” and define VMT as “…the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project…”. It should be noted that “automobile” refers to on- road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Consistent with the OPR guidelines and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b), the following specific VMT metrics are recommended by the County to complete a VMT impact assessment: • Residential Projects: VMT per resident for all home-based trips. • Employment Projects: VMT per employee for only the home-based-work trip purpose and would apply to office, industrial, and institutional projects. • Regional Retail (>50,000 square feet): Total VMT per service population for trips taken by both workers and visitors. • Mixed-Use: Total VMT per service population. • Other: Total VMT per service population for trips taken by both workers and visitors. The project proposes a mix of office, warehousing and commercial land uses and therefore is considered to be an employment project. Therefore, home -based work VMT per employee metric was chosen for the project’s VMT analysis. A proposed project should be considered to have a significant impact if the project VMT is greater than: • Employment Projects (office, industrial and institutional projects): 15% below the Bay Area average commute VMT per employee. The project’s detailed VMT analysis was conducted using the Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model and is provided under Threshold 2. For significant VMT impacts found, appropriate VMT reduction strategies such as the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, or other VMT-reducing measures, have been provided to mitigate project impacts. Hazardous Features (Project Access and Off-ramp Queuing) The analysis evaluates whether the project would result in hazards due to design features by determining whether the 95th percentile queuing at the Project access intersections and Caltrans 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-18 off-ramp intersections would exceed the storage pockets lengths. The following intersections were analyzed for queuing impacts under Threshold 3: • Byron Highway/Holey Road; • Byron Highway/Byron Hot Springs Road; • Mountain House Parkway/ I-205 westbound ramps; and • Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps. Emergency Access The emergency access analysis evaluates whether the project would comply with County’s emergency access and/or evacuation requirements including those imposed by the Fire Department. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates and fitted curve equations obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th and 10th Editions (ITE 2012; 2017). As the proposed project contains warehousing, industrial, general commercial, and office land uses, this project is considered a multi-use development. The ITE rate for General Aviation Airport (022) from the ITE Trip General Manual, 9th Edition was used for the proposed aviation land use as rates provided in the 10th Edition. For the proposed general commercial land use, the ITE rate for Shopping Center (820) is the most reflective of trip generation and pass-by for this use. Pass- by trips were calculated using the average pass-by trip percentage presented within the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, for the Shopping Center land use. Internal trip capture is anticipated between the warehouse, industrial, general commercial, and office land uses. Trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation estimates for the project are summarized in Table 3.13-1. Table 3.13-1 Project Trip Generation for Byron Airport Development Program Trip Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % In % Out Total % In % Out Total Mini-Warehouse 151 TSF 1.51 60% 40% 0.10 47% 53% 0.17 General Light Industrial 110 TSF 4.06 88% 12% 0.52 13% 87% 0.63 Shopping Center 820 TSF 61.96 62% 38% 2.16 48% 52% 5.57 General Office Building 710 TSF 10.68 86% 14% 1.26 16% 84% 1.15 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-19 Table 3.13-1 Project Trip Generation for Byron Airport Development Program Trip Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % In % Out Total % In % Out Total General Aviation Airport2 022 BA 5.00 50% 50% 0.41 55% 45% 0.52 Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Size Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Warehouse 151 274 TSF 414 16 11 27 22 25 47 To General Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 To Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 110 213 TSF 865 97 13 111 17 117 134 To General Commercial 0 -3 0 -3 -2 -17 -19 To Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Commercial 820 91 TSF 5,639 122 75 197 243 264 507 To Commercial Recreation 0 -1 -1 -2 -7 -9 -16 To Office 0 -3 -3 -6 -15 -4 -19 To Warehouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 To Industrial 0 0 -3 -3 -17 -2 -19 Office 710 81 TSF 865 88 14 102 15 78 93 To General Commercial 0 -3 -3 -6 -4 -15 -19 To Warehouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 To Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aviation Uses 022 167 BA 835 34 34 68 48 39 87 Project Trips 8,617 348 138 486 300 476 776 Shopping Center Pass-by (15% AM, 30% PM reduction) 0 -52 -21 -73 -45 -71 -116 Net New Project Trips 8,617 296 117 413 255 405 660 Notes: BA = Based Aircraft; TSF = Thousand Square Feet 1 Trip rates based on fitted-curve equations or average rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (ITE 2017). 2 Trips rate based on average rates for General Aviation Airport, provided in the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (ITE 2012). As shown in Table 3.13-1, the proposed project would generate 8,617 daily trips, 486 AM peak hour trips (348 inbound and 138 outbound), and 776 PM peak hour trips (300 inbound and 476 outbound). When accounting for shopping center pass-by trip reductions, the proposed project would generate 8,617 net new daily trips, 413 AM net new peak hour trips (296 inbound and 117 outbound), and 660 PM net new peak hour trips (255 inbound and 405 outbound). While trip generation is not used in the EIR for the purpose of determining impacts based on traffic delay or congestion, it is helpful in assessing issues such as access and traffic hazards. Trip generation also plays an important role in evaluating mobile emissions and noise impacts. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-20 3.13.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.13-1. The project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Contra Costa General Plan including GME and TCE, CRIPP, Complete Streets, Vison Zero Contra Costa, County Ordinance Code and CCTA include plans, programs and policies that address the circulation system in the County. If the proposed project does not implement a particular program, plan, or policy, it would not necessarily result in a conflict as some of these programs must be implemented by the County or other related agencies, over time and a broad area. Rather, the proposed project would result in a conflict if it would preclude the County from implementing adopted transportation-related programs, plans and policies. The proposed project has the potential to conflict with the plans, programs, ordinances, and policies described in the Section 3.13.1 that focus on policies or standards adopted to protect the environment and support multimodal transportation options and reduce VMT. However, as shown below the proposed project has taken the following measures to address any potential conflicts with the circulation system: • Consistent with the County’s General Plan which establishes policies and standards for safe and efficient performance of the transportation system and the CCTA TAG 2020 guidelines that requires land development projects be evaluated against operational and efficiency standards of LOS and VMT, the proposed project has prepared a TIA report (Appendix H). Based on the analysis provided in the TIA of the proposed project, mitigation measures for CEQA impacts (as described in Section 3.13.4 and shown in Appendix H) and transportation improvement measures for General Plan consistency (or Non CEQA) requirements (shown in Appendix H) have been identified for the proposed project. • The proposed project would comply with the County’s Ordinance Code to include required EV charging stations and parking as well as the off-street parking standards. The details of parking requirements would be addressed at the Design Review stage of the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with the County’s TDM ordinance (described in detail in Section 3.13.5). • As discussed in Section 3.13.2, Transportation Setting, there is currently no transit service to the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would result in an increase in population and employment in the County, increasing the number of people who may use public transit services. However, the project site is not directly served by any transit routes. The closest existing transit stop is approximately 7 miles 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-21 northwest of the project site in the City of Brentwood. No planned public transit facilities or services are planned for the project vicinity. • There are no bicycle facilities that serve the project site. However, the Contra Costa CBPP (CCTA 2018) has planned bicycle facilities for Byron Highway, Camino Diablo, Bixler Road, Byer Road, and SR-4 (Figure 3.13-2). Per CBPP, as shown on Figure 3.13-3, Class II bicycle lanes are proposed along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road from project site to Byron Highway. The local bicycle network would connect to the low-stress bikeway (Class II) proposed along Byron Highway. The proposed project shall provide adequate bike parking, change, and shower facilities on-site and improve accessibility for on-site bicycle movement as well connections to immediate off-site locations by facilitating connections with Class II bike lanes along Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. • In addition, there are no existing pedestrian facilities within the project vicinity. Due to the lack of connectivity and significant development in the immediate project vicinity, pedestrian activity is very light at present. However, with development of the proposed project, pedestrian traffic is expected to increase due to the general commercial and office components of the proposed project. Long-range planning for Byron Highway includes possible pedestrian facilities in terms of sidewalks and a Class I multi-use path. Consistent with County General Plan policies and Complete Street Policy, the proposed project is expected to provide continuous sidewalks along the project frontage (where development fronts a public street). Internally, pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, and accessible paths of travel should be provided within the project site, as follows: o Within the developed core to allow easy access to each building o Between public street and the developed core Where feasible, sidewalks would be configured to channel pedestrians to crosswalks. The proposed project would comply with the County’s Complete Streets Policy, which requires the needs of all users (including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders) to be met during street design. The County’s Complete Streets Policy was adopted by Resolution No. 2016-374 by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County on July 12, 2016 (Contra Costa County 2016). There is limited availability of alternative transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, conflict with adopted pedestrian or bicycle system plans or policies, create a substantial demand for mass transit services above existing or planned capacity, or interfere with existing or planned transit facilities. However, the proposed project would not preclude the County or CCTA from implementing any programs, plans and policies that would improve accessibility to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in its vicinity. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-22 Therefore, with the implementation of project-related actions described above, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.13-2. The project would potentially conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). (Potentially Significant) The following discusses the Proposed Project’s VMT impacts and its consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Per the County’s guidelines, if a project meets any one of the following criteria it would not require a detailed VMT analysis: • Projects that: o Generate or attract fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips1: or, o Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. As shown in project trip generation, the project would generate 8,617 daily trips and therefore would not meet the small project screening criteria. • Residential, retail, office projects, or mixed-use projects proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop2 or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor3. The project is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor per Public Resources Code Section 21155 and therefore, would not meet the transit proximity screening. • Residential projects (home-based VMT) at 15% or below the baseline County-wide home- based average VMT per capita, or employment projects (employee VMT) at 15% or below 1 CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is availabl e to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).). Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110 -124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 3 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-23 the baseline Bay Area average commute VMT per employee in areas with low VMT that incorporate similar VMT reducing features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility) As shown in the following VMT analysis, the project is not located within an area with low VMT and the project’s employee VMT is above the baseline Bay Area average commute VMT per employee. Therefore, the project does not meet the low VMT screening. • Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low-intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. • The project proposes warehouse, office, and commercial uses which would complement the existing airport use. Since it is not proposing public facilities and government buildings, therefore, the project type screening would not apply. The proposed project does not meet the screening criteria identified above; therefore, further assessment of project’s VMT impact under base year conditions (year 2018) and cumulative conditions (year 2040) is provided below using available significance thresholds and guidance from the County. Project Level Analysis The 2010 CCTA model was utilized for VMT analysis of the proposed project. The CCTA is a trip-based model that has been developed using Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel demand model. The 2010 Decennial update of the CCTA Model was a major update in which the land use, network assumptions and model processes were updated to reflect the most recent MTC travel demand model. The CCTA model uses TransCAD Version 5.0 (Build 1515) software and generally follows the processes of the MTC trip-based model while providing additional detail within Contra Costa. The model network is updated to reflect the MTC transportation 2035 (T-2035) RTP network. The traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the Countywide Model began with MTC’s 1,099-zone model for the Bay Area that existed at the time the Countywide Model was first developed. Later, approximately 1,700 TAZs were added in the Contra Costa/Tri-Valley Study Area. The current MTC model consists of 3,120 TAZs, of which 1,495 are located within Contra Costa. Land use and demographic data are required for each TAZ. The demographic data provides the basis for estimating trip generation. Both the demographic and transportation network data are used in predicting trip distribution patterns and mode of travel. The land use data for the model is updated every two to four years. The model land use and demographic inputs for traffic zones within Contra Costa consist of variables such as number of households, residents, employment, household income, high school, and college enrollment, etc. The highway and transit networks for the Countywide Model are based on the existing and planned transportation system, including 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-24 freeways, arterials, major collectors, and selected minor collectors and include virtually all signalized intersections in the study area. The transit network is based on MTC’s transit networks with refinements based upon local review by the transit operators. For both highway and transit networks, detailed networks within Contra Costa are combined with MTC networks outside the county. The CCTA Model uses the auto ownership, trip generation, trip distribution and mode choice modules within MTC’s BAYCAST-90 model. The model is used to generate highway and transit outputs such as link volumes, intersection turn movements, volume to capacity ratios and vehicle miles traveled as standard outputs. Consistent with standard modeling practice, to identify VMT from the project, a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for the project was included in the CCTA model and select zone runs were conducted for year 2018 and 2040. Since the primary purpose of SB 743 is to reduce home-based automobile travel, only the employee VMT related to home-based work (HBW) passenger vehicle travel are reported from the model for the project, the County, and the Bay Area. The findings of the project’s VMT analysis for the base year (Year 2018) with and without the project are shown in Table 3.13- 2 below. Appendix A includes the VMT output from the CCTA model for year 2018 and 2040. Table 3.13-2 Summary of Project’s Home-Based-Work VMT per Employee Criteria Year 2018 (no Project) Year 2018 (with Project) Bay Area Commute VMT (Existing Baseline) 14.9 14.9 Contra Costa County VMT 14.0 14.0 Byron Airport Zone (Project) VMT 22.7 21.2 15% below Bay Area Commute VMT(Threshold of Significance) 12.7 12.7 Is the Project above or below Threshold? — Above the Threshold % Reduction Required — 40% Source: Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model The HBW VMT per employee for the project is 21.2, for the County is 14.0 and for the Bay Area is 14.9. As shown in Table 3.13-2, the HBW VMT per employee under with Project scenario, decreases (from 22.7 to 21.2) nominally compared to the no project scenario. HBW VMT per employee is an efficiency metric which is the ratio of total HBW employee VMT and number of employees. Although the HBW VMT and number of employees in the airport zone increase under with project scenario compared to the no project scenario, the ratio of total HBW employee VMT and number of employees decreases nominally. A slight decrease in VMT per employee under with project conditions compared to the without project conditions indicates that the project would improve VMT efficiency in the region. However, it should be noted that the VMT significance of threshold requires comparison of the project VMT with the regional average (i.e., Bay Area Average), and not a comparison of with project and no project scenarios. The County threshold 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-25 for Employment Projects (office, industrial, and institutional projects) is that the project VMT should be 15% below Bay Area average commute VMT per employee (i.e., home-based work VMT per employee). The project’s HBW VMT per employee (21.2) is higher than the Bay Area VMT per employee (14.9). To meet the threshold of 15% below Bay Area Average and have a less than significant VMT impact, the HBW VMT per employee for the project should be approximately 12.7, which would require a 40% reduction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant VMT impact. Transportation demand management strategies and mitigation measures that can potentially achieve VMT reductions are provided in Section 3.13.5. Cumulative Analysis Per the County’s guidelines, cumulative impacts should be evaluated for consistency with the County General Plan. If a project is consistent with the County General Plan (Envision 2040) and the General Plan remains consistent with its VMT projections as originally analyzed, the project’s cumulative impacts shall be less-than significant. However, if the project is inconsistent with the adopted County General Plan, then the analysis should evaluate the project’s cumulative VMT impacts and determine if the Countywide VMT increases or decreases with the proposed project relative to the VMT generated by full General Plan buildout. It should be noted that the County is currently updating its General Plan (Envision 2040) and as mentioned in the project description, the project is proposing to update the ALUCP which would allow non-residential development that are compatible with the land use plan for Byron Airport. Therefore, the project would be increasing jobs and hence employment-related VMT compared to the current General Plan and ALUCP. Table 3.13-3 provides the total employment VMT estimate from the CCTA model for the Contra Costa County and the Byron Airport zone for the year 2040. It should be noted that for VMT analysis, the cumulative analysis is based on comparing the total VMT with and without project for the Byron Airport Zone with the County, whereas the project analysis is based on comparing the efficiency metric i.e., the HBW VMT per employee of the project zone with the regional average (i.e., Bay Area Average). Table 3.13-3 Cumulative VMT (Total Employment VMT) Criteria Year 2040 (no Project) Year 2040 (with Project) Net Increase in VMT Contra Costa County VMT 20,611,607 20,635,911 24,304 Byron Airport Zone (Project) VMT 2,557 32,046 29,489 Source: Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-26 Since the Countywide VMT would increase with the proposed project relative to the total VMT generated by the County under year 2040 conditions, the project’s cumulative impacts would be considered significant. Impact 3.13-3. The project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Potentially Significant) The following discussion describes the potential for increased hazards as a result of geometric design features of the project, and/or as a result of the addition of project traffic to adjacent roadway facilities. Project Site Access Regional access to Byron Airport and the project site is provided via SR -4 to the north, I-205 to the south, and Byron Highway to the east. Direct access to the project site is provided via Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road from Byron Highway. Both Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road are two-lane collector roads, with minor street stop control at their intersections with Byron Highway. Additionally, Armstrong Road provides a connection to Falcon Way and the western portion of the project site from Byron Hot Springs Road. The levels of service at the two project access roads from Byron Highway (intersections #1 and #2) is provided in the following chapters and summarized in Table 3.13-4 below for all analysis scenarios. Table 3.13-4. Project Access Level of Service Scenario Peak Hour # 1. Byron Highway/Holey Road #2. Byron Highway/Byron Hot Springs Road Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Existing plus Project AM 25.1 D 85.6 F PM 183.7 F >300 F Future Year 2040 plus Project AM 29.6 D >300 F PM >300 F >300 F Notes 1 Delay in seconds per vehicle 2 Level of Service (LOS) XX – Unsatisfactory Level of Service Both intersections were analyzed as two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections. As such, the turning movement with the highest delay is reported. As shown in Table 3.13-4, both project access study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour at Intersection 1, and during both peak hours at intersection 2 in both study scenarios. The western leg of the intersection is stop controlled at both intersections, and the eastbound left-turning movement is the primary cause for the deficient LOS during all scenarios. All other movements at the intersection operate at LOS A or B. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-27 A queuing analysis was prepared at the intersections of Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road with Byron Highway to determine the potential for queuing hazards both on the minor streets and along Byron Highway. Queuing summaries for Existing and Future Year 2040 conditions are provided in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6, respectively. As shown in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6 the calculated 95th percentile (design) queues for the Existing and Future Year plus Project conditions, respectively, exceed available vehicle storage capacities at both intersections. As no turning pockets or two-way-left-turn (TWLTL) facilities are provided along Byron Highway at the project access study intersections, storage capacity does not exist and therefore has been assumed to be zero. For stop-controlled side-street movements, storage capacity is measured from the study intersection to the nearest paved intersecting roadway for the purpose of this analysis. Queuing on Byron Highway, specifically at the northbound left turning movements onto Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road, could lead to increased delays and degradation of Byron Highway traffic operations. Although the project would directly not add northbound left-turning movements to the intersection of Byron Highway/Byron Hot Springs Road, increased project traffic at other movements (i.e., eastbound left-turning movement from Byron Hot Springs Road) would impact queueing of the northbound travel lane. Both intersections operate at deficient levels of service, therefore improvement measures are identified for both intersections in the project’s TIA. Implementation of these improvement measures would reduce queuing at both intersections with improvements to the delay and therefore impact would be less than significant. The project has the potential to increase the volume of truck traffic on the roadway network to serve warehousing and light industrial development. Although regional roadways, such as Byron Highway and SR-4, already safely handle significant volumes of truck traffic, the rural roads providing access to Byron Airport may not support the increase in truck traffic. For example, Byron Hot Springs Road south of Armstrong Road narrows to 20 feet wide with 3-foot-wide gravel shoulders (providing 10-foot-wide travel lanes for two-way traffic). Armstrong Road has adequate width (16-foot-wide travel lanes), although the turn radius at Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs may require large trucks to travel off of the paved street section (onto a soft shoulder). Holey Road, which would provide an important southerly access to the airport-related development area, narrows to 21 feet of paved road width with narrow shoulders. Although existing traffic volumes can be handled on these roads, they may be inadequate for increased volumes of project-related traffic, including increased truck traffic. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Therefore, the project proponent would construct the street improvements along Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road described in MM- TRAF-9 to reduce access impacts related to heavy truck traffic. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-28 Freeway Ramp Queuing Due to the potential for the proposed project to add traffic to Caltrans facilities within the study area, the following Caltrans freeway off-ramps were analyzed for queuing impacts: • Mountain House Parkway/ I-205 westbound ramps • Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps As shown in Table 3.13-7, no peak 95th percentile queues are expected to exceed the storage pocket lengths in the Existing plus Project conditions. However, as shown in Table 3.13 -8, peak 95th percentile queues are expected to exceed storage pocket lengths in the Future Year 2040 plus Project , AM peak hour conditions at the Mountain House Parkway/I -205 westbound ramp intersection and for the following turning movements: • Westbound left-thru lane (WBLT): This is a storage lane that extends from the intersection to approximately 700 feet from the stop bar. It is expected that forecast queues would extend past the available pocket length and contribute to queuing in the adjacent westbound right turn lane (WBR1 and WBR2), which serve as the primary off-ramp lanes from the freeway mainline. • Westbound right-turn lane 1 (WBR1): This is a primary off-ramp lane that extends from the intersection to approximately 1,515 feet to the gore line at the I-205 mainline. It is expected that forecast queues would extend past the available storage length and contribute to existing queueing into the mainline. • Westbound right-turn lane 2 (WBR2): This is a primary off-ramp lane that extends from the intersection to approximately 1,515 feet to the gore line at the I-205 mainline and serves as an exit-only lane from the 11th Street on-ramp, approximately 1-mile upstream. It is expected that forecast queues would extend past the available storage length and contribute to existing queueing into the mainline within this exit-only lane. When comparing the Future Year 2040 scenario with the addition of the proposed project, queueing is forecast to increase for all movements during the AM peak hour at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps; vehicle traffic would continue to spill into the mainline lanes in Future Year 2040 no Project and plus Project conditions. No current funded or planned improvements are identified at the I-205 westbound ramps with Mountain House Parkway. The TriLink (SR-239) Feasibility Study Final Report identifies potential alignments for the proposed SR-239 corridor between SR-4 to the north and I-580 and/or I-205 to the south, which would reduce traffic volumes on I-580, Vasco Road, and Byron Highway (CCTA 2014). As such, shifts in regional traffic patterns could also reduce congestion and queuing at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps. However, as the SR-239 Feasibility Study does not identify specific improvements, nor are specific improvements planned or funded in the area, hazards related to queuing at this off-ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-29 Table 3.13-5 Project Access Queuing Summary - Existing plus Project No. Intersection Movement Vehicle Storage Length1 Existing Existing plus Project Improvement Warranted? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 1 Byron Highway/Holey Road EBLR 2040 22 No 28 No 56 No 330 No No NBLT 0 3 Yes 15 Yes 207 Yes 204 Yes Yes3 SBTR 0 0 No 0 No 8 Yes 7 Yes No4 2 Byron Highway/Byron Hot Springs Road EBLR 1705 62 No 48 No 186 No 895 No No NBLT 0 33 Yes 0 No 129 Yes 0 No Yes3 SBTR 0 9 Yes 7 Yes 16 Yes 20 Yes No4 Source: Appendix H Notes: NBLR = northbound left-through lane; EBLR = eastbound left-right lane; SBTR = southbound through-right lane. 1 Available storage length (feet) is measured from the study intersection to the nearest paved intersecting roadway for stop-controlled side-street movements. No existing storage lanes are provided along Byron Highway; therefore, the storage length is assumed to be zero. 2 Based on 95th percentile (design) queue length (feet) in SimTraffic 10. 3 Queuing could result in delays and degradation of Byron Highway traffic operations. 4 Although queues may extend onto Byron Highway for SBTR movements, these lengths (less than one car length) would result in negligeable degradation to the flow of southbound traffic and would not warrant improvements. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-30 Table 3.13-6 Project Access Queuing Summary – Future Year 2040 plus Project No. Intersection Movement Vehicle Storage Length1 Future Year 2040 Future Year 2040 plus Project Improvement Warranted? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Vehicle Storage Length? 1 Byron Highway/Holey Road EBLR 2040 26 No 57 No 83 No 737 No No NBLT 0 28 Yes 43 Yes 347 Yes 305 Yes Yes3 SBTR 0 0 No 0 No 13 Yes 7 Yes No4 2 Byron Highway/Byron Hot Springs Road EBLR 1705 866 No 136 No 857 No 859 No No NBLT 0 62 Yes 0 No 195 Yes 0 No Yes3 SBTR 0 13 Yes 0 No 16 Yes 8 Yes No4 Source: Appendix D Notes: NBLR = northbound left-through lane; EBLR = eastbound left-right lane; SBTR = southbound through-right lane. 1 Available storage length is measured from the study intersection to the nearest paved intersecting roadway for stop-controlled side-street movements. No existing storage lanes are provided along Byron Highway; therefore, the storage length is assumed to be zero. 2 Based on 95th percentile (design) queue length in SimTraffic 10. 3 Although queuing would not impact the nearest paved intersection roadway, queuing could increase delays and degradation of Byron Highway traffic operations. 4 Although queues may extend onto Byron Highway for SBTR movements, these lengths (less than one car length) would result in negligeable degradation to the flow of southbound traffic and would not warrant improvements. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-31 Table 3.13-7 Existing plus Project Caltrans Off-Ramp Queuing Summary No. Intersection Movement Pocket Length1 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Improvement Warranted AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 15 Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps WBLT 700 278 No 167 No 250 No 164 No No WBR13 1515 54 No 53 No 53 No 60 No No WBR23 1515 51 No 50 No 53 No 50 No No 16 Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps EBL3 1555 63 No 75 No 61 No 84 No No EBLT3 1555 47 No 78 No 61 No 82 No No EBR 465 57 No 38 No 63 No 37 No No Source: Appendix H Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; I = Interstate; EBL = eastbound left-turn lane; EBR = eastbound right-turn lane; EBLT = eastbound left-thru lane; WBLT = westbound left- thru lane; WBR = westbound right-turn lane (#1, 2, etc. indicates multiple right turn lanes) 1 Measured in feet. 2 Based on 95th percentile (design) queue length in SimTraffic 10. 3 Primary off-ramp lane; approximate length measured from freeway mainline. Length measured from stop bar to gore line at mainline. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-32 Table 3.13-8 Future Year 2040 plus Project Caltrans Off-Ramp Queuing Summary No. Intersection Movement Pocket Length1 Future Year 2040 Conditions Future Year 2040 plus Project Improvement Warranted AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 95th Percentile Queue2 Exceeds Turn Pocket Length? 15 Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps WBLT 700 925 Yes 249 No 932 Yes 257 No Yes4 WBR13 1515 2266 Yes 109 No 2386 Yes 109 No Yes WBR23 1515 2122 Yes 99 No 2306 Yes 105 No Yes 16 Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps EBL3 1555 67 No 111 No 85 No 127 No No EBLT3 1555 63 No 119 No 84 No 132 No No EBR 465 66 No 44 No 66 No 42 No No Source: Appendix H Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; I = Interstate; EBL = eastbound left-turn lane; EBR = eastbound right-turn lane; EBLT = eastbound left-thru lane; WBLT = westbound left- thru lane; WBR = westbound right-turn lane (#1, 2, etc. indicates multiple right turn lanes) Bold – Queue exceeds storage length; Highlight – Queue exceeds storage length and impacts the freeway mainline. 1 Measured in feet. 2 Based on 95th percentile (design) queue length in SimTraffic 10. 3 Primary off-ramp lane; approximate length measured from freeway mainline. Length measured from stop bar to gore line at mainline. 4 Although queue does not impact mainline lanes, queue would contribute to queueing in adjacent lanes. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-33 Impact 3.13-4. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less Than Significant) The project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Internal airport roadways would be designed in accordance with Uniform Fire Code standards, and prior to the issuance of building permits, adequate emergency access would be ensured through the plan check process and fire review. Implementation of the project would increase the number of access points to Byron Airport (for example, from Holey Road). Construction activities may result in short-term lane closures. Any lane closures due to construction activity would be coordinated with emergency service providers to maintain access. Access to Byron Airport and surrounding properties would be maintained throughout construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with inadequate emergency access. 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures As shown in Section 3.13.4, the project would have a significant VMT impact. The following section provides a summary of measures that can be implemented to mitigate the project’s VMT impact. In addition, mitigation is identified to address the width of Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures can be implemented as project design features and/or mitigation measures for reducing VMT. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 2010 report has identified actions and changes to project features that reduce VMT. Additionally, the County’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide published in December 2009 by the Department of Conservation & Development has outlined effective ways to reduce vehicle trips (hence VMT) added by new development projects. Table 3.13-9 describes strategies from the County’s TDM Ordinance Guide and CAPCOA as sample options that would be most effective in areas like the community of Byron and are appropriate for the project to avoid or reduce the significant impact. VMT reductions for each of the strategy (using the applicable range of effectiveness) that can be applied to the project have been estimated per CAPCOA’s mitigation measure calculation provided in Fact Sheets of the document. Only the strategies that would be applicable to suburban locations such as the project’s location were used. Further, high-level assumptions regarding project’s site design were made since the project’s site plan was not available at the time of preparation of the TIS. A conservative estimate of employee participation was applied to the VMT reduction calculation. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-34 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) Project Site Design Features (including Pedestrian Facilities) A comprehensive design that features pedestrian amenities, covered bus stops and adequate accessibility, benches, passenger loading zones, etc. To encourage walking, safe, and convenient pedestrian access and movement need to ensure as part of the project site design, the proposed project would include the following design elements: 1. Minimize walking distances along the internal street/path network to provide convenient connections between the different buildings, services, etc. 2. Design gathering areas where enhanced landscaping, adequate lighting, signage, and street furniture are provided so that walking can be naturally encouraged with the provision of such design elements. 3. Establish traffic calming devices where feasible on the internal street system. 4. Other design considerations that are safety related include the provision of adequate sight triangles at project driveways and internal intersections, as well as preventing parking encroachment within pedestrian sidewalks and walkways. 5. Give a priority to establishing and maintaining pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, marked crosswalks and stop bars, in-pavement lighted crossing, bulb-outs, and other traffic calming devices, street, and pedestrian lighting, sheltered seating areas, and landscaping. LUT-9/3.1.9 Improve Design of Development – Project design elements that enhance walkability and connectivity can be measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto- oriented environments. SDT-1/3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements - Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. A project should provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. A project should minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated. SDT-2/3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures - Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift results in a decrease in VMT. Project design should include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures in excess of jurisdiction requirements. Roadways should be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips with traffic calming features. Traffic calming features may include: marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others. 3.0% - 21.3% VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = Intersections * B Where Intersections = Percentage increase in intersections versus a typical ITE suburban development; B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to % of intersections (0.12 from CAPCOA). Since the project’s site plan was not available at time of the preparation of this document, it was conservatively assumed that a 3% VMT reduction would be achieved using this measure. 0 – 2% VMT reduction 1% VMT reduction is allowed for pedestrian accommodations within project site in urban and sub-urban context. 0.25 – 1% VMT reduction The reduction is based on % of streets within project with traffic calming improvements and % of intersections within project with traffic calming improvements. Since the project’s site plan was not available at time of the preparation of this document, it was conservatively assumed 50% of project’s on-site streets and 50% of project’s on-site intersections would be designed with these considerations. This would allow 0.5% VMT reduction. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-35 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) Bicycling Facilities: The design measures listed below can be established by the project and approved as part of the development application review process: 1. Provide secure short- and long-term bicycle parking (i.e., bicycle racks and lockers, respectively) at prime locations of the development sites. 2. Provide showers, change facilities, and clothes lockers at convenient locations within business buildings in order to encourage cycling for longer distances. 3. Ensure safe and convenient access and movements of cyclists within development sites. SDT-5/3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on- site) - A project should incorporate bicycle lanes, routes, and shared-use paths into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. These on-street bike accommodations can provide a continuous network of routes, facilitated with markings and signage. These improvements can help reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more convenient for more people. SDT-6/ 3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects- A non-residential project should provide short- term and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand. Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities. SDT-9/3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails - Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to off-site bicycle networks. Grouped Strategy (LUT-9) 0.625% reduction in VMT (from literature per CAPCOA) Grouped Strategy (LUT-9) 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-36 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) Transit Facilities: 1. Provide safe and direct site access to the public streets where transit services are provided. 2. Provide necessary transit facilities in the vicinity of project site (such as bus shelter, bus turnout, concrete pad, seating, lighting, etc.), in order to support transit use. 3. Establish an on-site information kiosk where information on transit routes, schedules, and fares can be provided. 4. Intersection geometry and road structure should be capable of supporting the length and weight of buses, including internal project circulation roads if bus or shuttle service is anticipated to enter the project site. 5. Communicate with the local transit agency (Tri Delta Transit) to seek changes/addition to bus route to support transit ridership for the project. 6. Provide shuttle service to main transit station during the commute periods. TST-2/3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements This project should improve access to transit facilities through sidewalk/ crosswalk safety enhancements and bus shelter improvements. The benefits of Transit Access Improvements alone have not been quantified and need to be grouped with Transit Network Expansion (TST-3) and Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4). TST-3/3.5.3 Expand Transit Network –A project should expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service to enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT. Grouped Strategy (TST-3 and TST-4) 0– 8.2% VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = Coverage * B * Mode * D Where Coverage = % increase in transit network coverage; B = elasticity of transit ridership with respect to service coverage (value from CAPCOA); Mode = existing transit mode share; D = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, from Appendix D of CAPCOA) Since the project is located in a sub-urban area with no existing transit service, a low range % VMT reduction (10% expansion, sub-urban) was assumed. Therefore, 0.1% VMT reduction would be achieved using this measure. Commute Trip Reduction Strategies: 1. Rideshare/Carshare Initiatives a. Designate a number of on-site parking spaces at prime locations (i.e., close to buildings access, well lit, etc.) for carpools and vanpools privately operated by tenants. Short-term parking spaces or passenger loading areas are also needed for taxi and outside shuttle services. Establishing carpool/vanpool initiatives can reduce the overall demand for on-site parking. TRT-3/3.4.2 Provide Ride-sharing Programs - Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. Ride-sharing program and a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. Funding may be provided by Community Facilities, District, or County Service Area, or other non- revocable funding mechanism. Ride-sharing programs can be promoted through a multi-faceted approach such as: Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles 0– 15% commute VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = Commute *Employee Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (from CAPCOA); Employee = % employees eligible; For the project, commute = 5% (low density suburb annual reduction); 50% of the employees were assumed to be eligible for participation in the 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-37 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) 2. Establish on-site car rental or carshare services so that tenants do not need to rely on personal cars for work-related purposes. 3. Employer Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides TRT-9/3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program- A car- sharing project allows people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car- sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car-share companies. Employer-based car-sharing programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. TRT-11/3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle- Implementing an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. program as 10% of the employees are estimated to be County Airport staff. % VMT Reduction = 5%*50% = 2.5% 0.4 – 0.7% commute VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = A * B / C; Where A = % reduction in car-share member annual VMT (from the literature); B = number of car share members per shared car (from the literature); C = deployment level based on urban or suburban context; For the project,per CAPCOA, A= 37% (per 1); B=20 (per 2); C = 1 shared car per 2,000 population for sub urban project setting % VMT Reduction = 37%*20/2000 = 0.4% 0.3%-13.4% commute VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = A * B * C; Where A = % shift in vanpool mode share of commute trips (from CAPCOA); B = % employees eligible; 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-38 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) 4. Flexible Work Schedules and Telecommuting a. Flexible Work Schedule programs established by employers govern the time period in which employees travel to and from work. Such programs influence employees’ propensity to consider using transit, carpooling, and other alternatives to driving alone to work. b. Telecommuting exists in several forms, such as working at home, working at a satellite center with shorter commuting distance, and working at neighboring work centers that can be leased to several employees and where office equipment is provided. 5. TDM Coordinator and/or Marketing Strategies. a. A TDM Coordinator is typically responsible for developing, marketing strategies, implementing and evaluating the TDM programs. The TDM Coordinator can be a designated on-site staff person (half- to full-time) with specific TDM responsibilities and authority. The Coordinator’s responsibilities can also be contracted out with a commute company. Since educational and Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. TRT-6/ 3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules- Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. TRT-7/ 3.4.8 Implement Commute Trip (CTR) Reduction Marketing/ Launch Targeted Behavioral Interventions Implementing marketing strategies to reduce commute trips and information sharing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: C = adjustments from vanpool mode share to commute VMT; For the project, A =20% for larger employer; B = 50%; C = 0.676 (See CAPCOA Appendix C) % VMT Reduction = 20%*50%*0.67= 6.7% 0.07%-5.5% commute VMT % Commute VMT Reduction = Commute; Where Commute = % reduction in commute (from Table) For the project, assuming 4-day/40 hour week for 25% of employees % VMT Reduction = 3.75% 0.8%-4.0% commute VMT % VMT Reduction = A*B*C; Where A = % reduction in commute vehicle trips; B = % employees eligible (50%); 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-39 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) promotional activities are needed to launch TDM program, the TDM coordinator plays a key role in coordinating with transportation service providers (such as 511 Contra Costa), hosting various event and providing pertinent information to all tenets and employees regarding the facilities, programs, and services available at the project site. 6. Transit Incentive a. Employees can be provided with incentives to take transit to commute to work by providing subsidized transit passes/fares, participating in the regional transportation programs. • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions • Publications TRT-4/3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program - Providing subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer or development. C=Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT; For the project, A = 4% (from CAPCOA); C = 1.0 (Appendix C of CAPCOA) % VMT Reduction = 4%*50%*1 = 2.0% 0.3%-20% commute VMT reduction % VMT Reduction = A*B*C; where A = % reduction in commute VMT (from CAPCOA); B = % employees eligible (50%); C=Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT using preferred literature table. % VMT Reduction = 1.9%*50%*1= 1.0% 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-40 Table 3.13-9 Transportation Demand Management and VMT Reduction Measures Contra Costa Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Guide (2009) Applicable CAPCOA (2010) Transportation Measures for VMT Reduction Range of Effectiveness of VMT Reduction and Calculation using CAPCOA (2010) Parking Supply and Demand Management Strategies - Establishing fees for on-site parking combined with a strong TDM program can help shift driver’s behavior to the use of alternative modes of transportation and higher occupancy vehicles. However, there are no existing transit or alternative transportation facilities near the project that employees can use to access the project. Therefore, only selective parking management strategies that have been included previously such as preferential parking for ridesharing/carpooling programs and design of development to limit on-site conflict locations between vehicular parking and pedestrian/cyclists movements would be applicable to the project. — — Source: County TDM Ordinance Guide 2009 and CAPCOA 2010 Notes: VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; VT = Vehicle Trips; LUT/PDT/SDT/TRT/TST are CAPCOA factsheets that summarize the quantification methodology for a specific mitigation measure. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-41 Based on Table 3.13-9, following mitigation measures and VMT reduction percentage has been summarized for the proposed project. MM-TRAF-1 Project Site Design: The project shall provide site design features that facilitate pedestrian amenities and promote accessibility for on-site pedestrian movement and connectivity to various buildings or project components.. As shown Table 3.13-10, this measure would result in a range of reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-2 Bicycling Facilities: The project shall provide adequate bike parking, change, and shower facilities on-site and improve accessibility for on-site bicycle movement as well as connections to immediate proposed off-site bike lanes along Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. As shown in Table 3.13-10, this measure would result in a 0.63% reduction in VMT. Low stress bikeway proposed along Byron Highway can be made accessible to bicyclists from the project if bike routes can be planned along Holey Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. MM-TRAF-3 Access to Transit and Expansion of Transit Network: The project shall provide access to transit and expand transit network. The project should work with Tri Delta Transit to add transit service in the project vicinity and provide connections with the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg and Oakley and other unincorporated areas. As shown Table 3.13-10, this measure was assumed to result in a conservative 0.1% reduction in VMT since there are no known transit service improvement or expansion projects near the project site. However, once transit coverage is increased, this VMT reduction could increase, however it would not reduce the Project’s VMT to a less than significant level. MM-TRAF-4 Ridesharing and Car-Sharing Programs for Employees: The project shall provide/promote/subsidize ride-sharing programs to the employees by utilizing approaches such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading/unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message boards for coordinating rides. Increasing the vehicle occupancy by utilizing ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, thereby decreasing the VMT. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing ridesharing and car-sharing programs to approximately 50% of the employees would result in a 2.5% and 0.4% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-5 Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: The project shall provide an employer- sponsored vanpool and shuttle for use by employees for commutes to work, and bus/transit station. The vanpool and shuttle will be available to all employees; however, the calculations conservatively assume the program would be offered to/utilized by 50 percent of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, providing employer-sponsored vanpool/shuttle to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 6.7% reduction in VMT. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-42 MM-TRAF-6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules for Employees: According to CAPCOA, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules would reduce the number of commute trips, thereby reducing the project’s VMT. Staggered start times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks are examples of alternative work schedules. Because retail and industrial/warehouse operations may require most of the employees to be on-site 24-hours per day, alternative work schedules may be feasible for a majority of the employees. The project shall implement a 4-day/40-hour work schedule for approximately 25% of the employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, with 25% employee participation in an alternate work schedule consisting of a 4- day/40- hour work week, a VMT reduction of 3.75% would result. MM-TRA-7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing: The project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. The marketing strategies would include new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications. Although the marketing would target all employees, a conservative assumption of marketing to only 50 percent of the employees was utilized in the calculation. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing/promoting commute trip reduction marketing to approximately 50% of the employees, would result in a 2.0% reduction in VMT. MM-TRAF-8 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program for Employees: The project shall provide subsidized or discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to the employees. Although subsidized or discounted transit program would be available to all employees, the VMT reduction calculation conservatively assumes that the program would be available to and utilized by a maximum of 50% of employees. As shown in Table 3.13-10, implementing subsidized or discounted transit program to approximately 50% of th e employees, would result in a 1.0% reduction in VMT. Table 3.13-10 VMT Reduction Summary Mitigation Measure CAPCOA Category Project VMT Reduction (%) MM-TRAF-1 The Project shall provide site design features that facilitate pedestrian amenities and promote accessibility for pedestrians. LUT-9 SDT-1 SDT-2 3.0% 1.0% 0.5% MM-TRAF-2 The project shall provide adequate bike parking, change, and shower facilities on-site and improve accessibility for on-site bicycle movement as well connections to immediate off- site locations. SDT-6 0.63% MM-TRAF-3 The Project shall facilitate access to transit and expand transit network. TST-3 0.10% MM-TRAF-4 The Project shall provide ridesharing and car- sharing programs for approximately 50% of the employees. TRT-3 TRT-9 2.5% 0.40% MM-TRAF-5 The Project shall provide employer sponsored vanpool/shuttle service for approximately 50% of the employees. TRT-11 6.7% 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-43 Table 3.13-10 VMT Reduction Summary Mitigation Measure CAPCOA Category Project VMT Reduction (%) MM-TRAF-6 The Project shall encourage alternative work schedules for approximately 25% of the employees (no telecommuting assumed). TRT-6 3.75% MM-TRAF-7 The Project shall Implement CTR Marketing/ Launch Targeted Behavioral Interventions for approximately 50% of the employees. TRT-7 2.0% MM-TRAF-8 The Project shall implement subsidized or discounted transit programs for approximately 50% of the employees. TRT-4 1.0% Total 19.7%1 1. The calculated reductions do not sum to a total since the effect of individual strategy reductions are multiplicative not additive. Total % VMT Reduction = 1-(1-A)*(1-B)*(1-C) where A, B, C equals reductions for individual strategies. The proposed project’s VMT with mitigation is summarized in Table 3.13-11. The VMT reductions associated with the above mitigation measures are applied incrementally, resulting in a lower net reduction in comparison to the sum of the numbers. The 19.7 % reduction in VMT is applied to the Project’s HBW VMT per employee and results in 17.0 HBW VMT per employee, which is still above the 15% below the Bay Area average threshold of 12.7 HBW VMT per employee. Even with the implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project’s significant impact cannot be fully mitigated. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Per preliminary estimates based on building square footage proposed for each use, the buildout of the project comprises of approximately 800 employees. Therefore, the County may require that as a condition of approval, the individual project tenants prepare TDM or CTR Program that establish performance standards (i.e., trip reduction requirements) which can be m onitored on a regular basis. Or the County may require the TDM program to be developed comprehensively for the entire project with flexibility to adjust to changing conditions (i.e. lower or higher VMT generating tenants), innovation and technological advancements. The project applicant/tenants should also work with 511 Contra Costa and use their county-wide program to reduce commuter trips by providing information, resources, and tools that promote mobility options such as biking, using transit, walk, micro mobility, carpool, van pool, working from home and guaranteed ride home. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-44 Table 3.13-11 Project VMT with Mitigation Measures Criteria Year 2018 (with Project) Bay Area Commute Average VMT (Existing Baseline) 14.9 Contra Costa County VMT 14.0 Byron Airport Zone VMT (Project) 21.2 15% below Bay Area Average VMT (Threshold) 12.7 Mitigation Reduction 19.7% Project VMT with Mitigation Measures 17.0 Is the Project above or below Threshold with Mitigation Above the Threshold Source: Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model and Table X MM-TRA-9 Prior to the completion of the first non-aviation development project that would serve heavy trucks, the project proponent shall construct street improvements related to the project site, as follows: • Widen Byron Hot Springs Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8-foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from Byron Highway to Holey Road. • Widen Holey Road to provide two 12-foot travel lanes and 5 to 8-foot-wide shoulders (based on design ADT approved by Public Works Department per County Standard Plan document and to include bike lanes and sidewalk) from the Airport property line to Byron Highway. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Armstrong Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. • Ensure an adequate paved turn-radius at the intersection of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road to facilitate appropriate truck movement. 3.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As shown 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures, even with the implementation of measures MM-TRAF-1 through MM-TRAF-8, the project’s VMT impacts (Threshold 2) would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MM-TRAF-9 would reduce access impacts related to heavy truck traffic to a less-than-significant level. However, as discussed in 3.13.4, under analysis of Threshold 3, no feasible improvements have been identified at the Mountain House Parkway/ I-205 westbound ramps that would have a queuing-related impact, therefore hazards related to queuing would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-45 3.13.7 Indirect Impacts The proposed project is located within a high VMT TAZ and as shown in the analysis of Threshold 2, the HBW VMT per employee of the propo sed project is significantly above the regional average. It should be noted that the project area is served primarily by vehicular modes and does not have transit, pedestrian, and bike accessibility under existing or buildout conditions. Additionally, even though level of service and delay is not considered a CEQA impact , the improvements identified to improve traffic operations in the project’s TIA which would require construction of additional on -site and off-site roadway improvements, can have indirect e ffects such as induced travel to the environment. Implementation of the on-site improvements such as internal roadways would be required and this EIR assumes full buildout of the aviation and airport -related development areas. Off -site improvements identi fied in the project’s TIA would require funding from additional sources such as CRIPP and County’s Development Mitigation Program. At the time of this writing, some of the improvement measures identified in the TIA are not funded. However, the project’s fair-share contribution towards these improvement measures has been identified in the TIA. Improving road infrastructure (i.e., adding lanes, signalization at intersections) may induce travel demand, resulting in an increase in VMT. However, until final impr ovements are identified and added to the CCTA model, quantifying the effects of induced travel would lack accuracy. Qualitatively, the construction of additional roadway capacity may increase the effects of Impact 3.13-2. The improvements have been identif ied based on regional traffic projections and are required to maintain an acceptable level of traffic operations per County’s LOS standards . 3.13.8 Cumulative Analysis Cumulative impacts, including future traffic volumes, are incorporated into Impact Section 3.13.4, Impacts Analysis for each of the threshold. The impact statements therefore reflect both direct and cumulative conditions. 3.13.9 References Cited Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Division of Aeronautics. October 2011. Accessed September 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/ airportlanduseplanninghandbook.pdf. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guide. Vehicles Miles Traveled-Focused Draft. May 20, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/ dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20-approved- vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-46 CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010. Contra Costa County. 2000. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. December 13, 2000. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4307/Airport-Land-Use-Commission-ALUC. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County Zoning Map. Accessed September 2019. https://gis.cccounty.us/Html5//index.html?viewer=CCMAP. Contra Costa County. 2009. Transportation Demand Management Measures Ordinance Guide. December 2009. Accessed October 2020. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/50168/TDM-Ordinance-Guide---FINAL Contra Costa County. 2016. Complete Streets Policy of Contra Costa County. July 12, 2016. Accessed January 6, 2021. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/42188/Complete-Streets-Policy?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2017. Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Element Map. December 19, 2017. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30949/Land-Use-Element-Map?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Accessed August 2020. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/67487/FINAL-CCC- Transportation-Analysis-Guidelines?bidId= CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority). 2013. Technical Procedures. January 16, 2013. Accessed October 2020. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ Final_Technical_Procedures_Full_Jan2013-1.pdf CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority). 2014. TriLink (SR-239) Feasibility Study Final Report. Access October 2020. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ 53a360a198c9a.pdf. CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority). 2017. East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Accessed October 2020. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 10/59cd5bc624446.pdf. CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority). 2019. Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. December 18, 2019. Accessed October 2020. https://ccta.net/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/CMP19_MainDoc_Appendices_Final.pdf 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-47 ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2012. Trip Generation Manual. 9th ed. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2017. Trip Generation Manual. 10th ed. OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. Accessed October 2020. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. San Joaquin County. 2020. San Joaquin County Bicycle Master Plan Update. Accessed October 2020. https://bikesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SJC_BMP-Update_Public-Review-Draft.pdf. 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-48 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FIGURE 3.13-1Byron Airport Development Program EIRSOURCE: Contra Costa County 2017Contra Costa County Roadway Network PlanNOT TO SCALEnLegendProject Site 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-50 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 San Joaquin County Alameda County Contra Costa County 205 Transit, Bike and Pedestrian Facilities (Existing and Proposed) Byron Airport Development Program EIR SOURCE: ESRI 2020, County of Contra Costa 2020, County of San Joaquin 2019, BART 2018, USDOT 2016Date: 4/7/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure3.13-2_TransitBikePedestrian.mxd0 12,5006,250 Feet Project Site Contra Costa County Bikeways Existing Low Stress Bikeway Proposed Low Stress Bikeway San Joaquin County Existing Bikeways Class I Shared Use Path Class II Bike Lane Class III Bike Route Bus Stop: Routes 385, 391 & 393 Route 385 Route 391 Route 393 BART Stations BART Line Amtrak Rail Station Amtrak Rail Line FIGURE 3.13-2 San Ramon Danville Danville Clayton Brentwood Antioch Oakley Pittsburg San Joaquin County Contra Costa County Solano County 160 4 Antioch-Pittsburg, California (ACA) Antioch Station (ANTC) Pittsburg Center (PCTR) 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-52 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK !! ! # Mount Diablo State Park Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve Round Valley Regional Park Balfour Rd Buchanan Rd Kirker Pass R d Wilbur Ave Willow Pass Rd D a v i s o n D r BaileyRdConcord Ave Sellers AveBrionesValleyRdEvo raR d e Valley Rd Camino Diablo Sunset Rd Delta RdOhara AveCypress Rd Chestnut St Clayton Rd Marsh Creek Rd Lone Tree Way HillcrestAve DeerValleyRdBlackhawkRd B y r o n HwyWalnutBlvdFairview AveEmpireMineRdNe r o l y R dRd M arsh Creek Rd Delta de Anza Regional TrailHarbor StB r e n t wood B l v dMarsh Creek TrailByron HwyMokelumme Trail Main StL Stiablo Rd R D PITTSBURG BRENTWOOD CLAYTON OAKLEY |}þ4 |}þ4 |}þ160 To Sacramento and Solano Counties Õ "To San Joaquin County Õ" Los Vaqueros Clifton Court Forebay Discovery Bay |}þ4 Incorporated Area #Amtrak Station !BART Station Existing Class I Existing Class II Existing Class III Proposed Class I Proposed Class II Proposed Class III Proposed Class IV Proposed Complete Streets Corridor Study Byron Airport Local Bicycle Networks (Existing and Proposed) Byron Airport Development Program EIR FIGURE 3.13-3SOURCE: CBPP 2020Path:Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR 3.13 – TRANSPORTATION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.13-54 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-1 3.14 UTILITIES This section describes the existing utilities setting of the Byron Airport Development Program (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. 3.14.1 Existing Conditions 3.14.1.1 Water Supply The project site is not currently served by a public water system (PWS). The water system on site consists of a domestic well with a 4,000-gallon holding tank, booster pump, and chlorinator. The water supply is for domestic purposes and not drinking water. Water is currently supplied to serve the site’s fire protection system, on-site bathrooms, and aircraft wash rack. Bottled water is used to provide drinking water at the project site. The existing fire suppression system consists of 11,000 feet of pipeline and 20 hydrants connected to a 100-horsepower pump located in a pump house on the northeast side of Runway 12-30. The pump has a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per minute and would draw from a 750,000-gallon on-site pond dedicated for fire protection, if necessary. Water for this pond is supplied by the Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) through a pump located above the underground portion of Canal 45 (LFA 2005; Mead & Hunt 2013). The site’s water system is permitted as a transient non-community water system (Water System No. CA0706110), which means that the water system regularly serves at least 25 non-residential individuals (transient) during 60 or more days per year (CA Drinking Water Watch 2016). However, this classification is no longer accurate, because the water supplied is non-potable and thus does not serve individuals (and thus not a public water system). Drinking water available on site is purchased from commercial suppliers, and the water system is used for non-potable purposes (e.g., aircraft wash rack). The site’s non-potable water system consists of a 200-foot-deep groundwater well connected to a 4,000-gallon holding tank. The yield of the well is estimated to be between 40 and 60 gallons per hour, or up to 1 gallon per minute. The water is distributed through a 2-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the groundwater well to the northwest, parallel to the taxiway and past the hangars to the Byron Jet Center. The main water uses at the site are seven sinks, five toilets, three urinals, and the aircraft wash rack. Based on California Waterworks Standards, the existing domestic water system is estimated to be at 48% capacity, and can provide an additional 2,080 gallons of water over a 4-hour period of peak hourly demand, or approximately 560 gallons per hour (Mead & Hunt 2013). 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-2 3.14.1.2 Wastewater Although there are several municipalities and service districts that provide sewer service in Contra Costa County (County), rural areas typically use and maintain privately owned septic tanks and leachfields where no public sewer service is available. Byron Airport’s sewer service is currently provided by approximately 2,500 linear feet of sanitary sewer collection lines and an underground septic tank with a lift station to a leach field that is located southwest of the main aircraft camp (Mead & Hunt 2013). The lift station contains two 2- horsepower pumps that each have a 46-gallons-per-minute maximum capacity. The leach field has a current capacity of 1,720 gallons per day (gpd). Current septic system demand is low due to low usage at Byron Airport, which include seven sinks, five toilets, three urinals, and the aircraft wash rack (Mead & Hunt 2013). There are no restrooms located within the Byron Jet Center, but restrooms are “stubbed” for future connection to water and sewer service. The peak daily sewage flow was estimated by Mead & Hunt (2013) as being 672 gallons, or approximately 39% of system capacity, which is 1,720 gpd. A more recent inspection indicates that the system is operating properly, but the septic tank is only 2,000 gallons, and the system is operating at close to capacity (Williams 2019). 3.14.1.3 Stormwater Drainage The County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the construction and maintenance of regional drainage and flood control facilities. Typically, the County Public Works Department maintains public drainage facilities in the unincorporated County, such as roadway culverts and ditches, and storm drains within a public right-of-way. Stormwater drainage at the project site primarily runs through natural drainage swales, ditches, and watercourses. Please refer to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detail regarding the on-site drainage. The primary receiving water for the existing and proposed development footprint of the proposed project is an approximately 15-acre detention basin located southeast of Runway 12-30 and east of Runway 5-23 (Google Earth 2018; LFA 2005). This basin, along with a system of drainage ditches and stormwater pipes designed for a 10-year storm, collects runoff from the majority of the developed portions of the project site (Mead & Hunt 2013). The existing aviation uses (administration building, aircraft and vehicle parking, hangar spaces, maintenance warehouses, pump house, wash rack, and other ancillary structures) are graded to drain northeast toward Runway 12-30 and its taxiway, which, through pipes and ditches, directs storm flows to the southeast and eventually to the detention basin (LFA 2005). Runway 5-23 and its taxiway direct storm flows to the east–northeast, also to the detention basin (LFA 2005). Under normal circumstances, storm flow that is collected by the detention basin is either lost to evaporation, 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-3 and/or percolates into the underlying groundwater table. During extreme storm events (i.e., greater than a 10-year storm), when the detention basin reaches its holding capacity, it is designed to overflow into a ditch that flows north under Holey Road and then northeast to the lower-most reach of Brushy Creek near Highway 14, approximately 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Indian Slough (Mead & Hunt 2013). 3.14.1.4 Dry Utilities Information on energy and telecommunications is based on the Byron Airport Infrastructure Study (Mead & Hunt 2013). Energy is further discussed in Section 3.15, Energy Consumption. Electricity Electric service is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). Electrical power is supplied to the project site by PG&E by a 12-kilovolt line from Holey Road. PG&E’s services are provided in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations. Natural Gas Byron Airport is not serviced by natural gas. However, a PG&E high-pressure transmission line is located on the project site (crossing under Runway 5-23). Telecommunications Communications service to Byron Airport is currently provided by AT&T via underground lines. There is an existing AT&T fiber-optic line on the Byron Highway corridor that could be extended to Byron Airport. 3.14.1.5 Solid Waste Solid waste collection services in the County are generally provided by private haulers through either a contract or franchise. The County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, certified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), currently monitors and maintains residential solid waste collection and recycling services in the County. The Airports Division contracts with Mount Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR) to handle solid waste generated by the County operations at the airport. Individual tenants are responsible for making their own arrangements with a solid waste collection service. Throughout the County, there are seven solid waste and recycling facilities and transfer centers: West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility – Central Processing Facility, Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS), ACME Landfill, Keller Canyon Landfill, Brentwood Transfer Station, and Pittsburg Recycling Center and 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-4 Transfer Station (Contra Costa County 2005a). Keller Canyon Landfill is a large-volume landfill, which serves the County, as well as the surrounding Bay Area counties. Keller Canyon Landfill is 28 miles from the project site. CalRecycle currently estimates the capacity will last another 49 years (CalReycle 2019a). Potrero Hills Landfill is located approximately 50 miles from the project site and could also possibly be used to dispose of wastes generated by the proposed project. Altamont Landfill, in Alameda County, is 15 miles away from the project site. The Altamont Landfill has sufficient capacity through 2045 (Waste Management 2019). Altamont Landfill and CCTRS accept construction debris in addition to commercial waste. Three additional construction and demolition waste management facilities have capacity to serve the project. These facilities include Byron Crushing & Grinding Services and Woodmill Recycling Company, both of which are located in Byron, and the MDRR Transfer Station facility in Pittsburg. MDRR provides commercial waste collection services for Byron that will be utilized by the project. 3.14.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances This section includes applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulatory guidance, and general plan goals and policies that govern public utilities in the County. 3.14.2.1 Water Federal Regulations The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that regulates the quality of potable water for the public. The SDWA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national health-based standards for drinking water quality. These standards may apply to naturally occurring and human-caused constituents in drinking water. The national standards are established using scientific methods to evaluate health risks and consider available technology and costs to achieve the standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or mandated methods for water treatment to remove contaminants, and requirements for regular water quality testing to make sure standards are achieved. In addition to setting these standards, the EPA provides guidance, assistance, and public information about drinking water; collects drinking water data; and oversees state drinking water programs. States can apply to the EPA for authority to implement the SDWA within their jurisdiction by showing that they will adopt standards at least as stringent as the national standards and adequately enforce these standards. California has been granted this authority, and the California Department of Public Health establishes and enforces statewide drinking water standards. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-5 State Regulations California Safe Drinking Water Act The California Department of Public Health administers the state’s SDWA through the Drinking Water Program. This program implements the regulatory authority of the Department of Public Health over PWSs in the state. PWS operators are required to regularly monitor their drinking water sources and supplies for microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants to demonstrate that the water meets the regulatory requirements regarding primary MCLs listed in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). MCLs have been established for ±80 inorganic and organic contaminants and six radiological contaminants. Monitoring is also required for a number of other contaminants and characteristics that deal with the aesthetic properties of drinking water, such as taste, odor, and appearance. These are known as secondary MCLs. The Drinking Water Program is implemented by the Department of Public Health in cooperation with the EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), and other state and local agencies, including county health departments, planning departments, and boards of supervisors. San Joaquin Basin Plan The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the project region was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB in 1998 and amended in 2015 (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for the Sacramento River Basin to protect the beneficial uses of these waters, which include providing drinking water supplies. Beneficial uses of the surface waters include municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial service, process, and power supply; contact and non-contact recreation; freshwater, migration, spawning, and wildlife habitat; and navigation. Beneficial uses for groundwater include municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial service and process supply (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). To protect the beneficial uses, the Basin Plan establishes objectives for surface water and groundwater. Surface water objectives cover the following characteristics and qualities: bacteria, bio-stimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, suspended material, tastes and odors, temperature, toxicity, and turbidity. Groundwater quality objectives cover the topics of bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, tastes and odors, and toxicity (Central Valley RWQCB 2015). 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-6 Drinking Water Quality Regulations and Standards The principal state regulatory agency involved in drinking water quality and potable reuse in California is the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The SWRCB receives the majority of its statutory authority related to public health and potable water from the California SDWA, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code and in Titles 17 and 22 of the CCR. In addition, the SWRCB DDW has the primary enforcement authority (primacy) to enforce the federal SDWA, and is responsible for the regulatory oversight of approximately 8,000 PWSs1 throughout the state. The SWRCB also administers and enforces regulations pertaining to protection of water qua lity and beneficial uses of water (including surface water and groundwater) under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, aspects of the federal Clean Water Act, and other statutes. The California SDWA prescribes enforceable primary standards for five major categories of drinking water contaminants: microorganisms, disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radionuclides. Primary drinking water standards established by the SWRCB under the California SDWA are equivalent or more stringent than those set by the EPA under the aforementioned federal SDWA. The SWRCB DDW has adopted new or more stringent drinking water standards for at least 16 inorganic and 33 organic contaminants, two groups of disinfection byproducts, two individual disinfection byproducts, and two treatment technique requirements. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations (22 CCR Section 64400 et seq.) include MCLs for chemicals, monitoring requirements, compliance determination procedures, and requirements for public notification in case of failure. Monitoring requirements were also established in 2001 for nine unregulated organic and inorganic chemical contaminants, which allowed collection of information on their presence in drinking water supplies. In addition, secondary MCLs have been established for non-health concerns based on aesthetic issues, such as taste, odor, or color in the water. The SWRCB and EPA have established secondary MCLs for at least 15 contaminants. The Surface Water Treatment Rule (22 CCR Section 64650 et seq.) is a set of regulations intended to control the pathogenic microorganisms found in surface sources by setting treatment requirements in lieu of MCLs. The regulations establish source sanitary survey, multibarrier treatment, treatment design, operation, reliability, monitoring, reporting, and failure notification requirements. The regulation requires that the source be an approved surface water (i.e., a surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water) that has received permit approval from the SWRCB in accordance with Sections 116525 through 116550 of the California Health and Safety Code. 1 Public water systems are systems that either have 15 or more service connections or serve at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-7 Public Water System Permitting PWS permits are issued to each producer or purveyor of drinking water serving a specified minimum number of connections as required by the California Health and Safety Code. The permit covers each source of water used by the system. These permits and their accompanying engineering reports identify the source site, construction, and contaminant threats, and establish the treatment, operational, and monitoring requirements for each source. Almost all permits include special provisions established specifically for the individual water system, setting forth operating requirements that, if not met, could result in a formal enforcement action. Permits do not have expiration dates, but whenever a water system adds a new water source, adds or changes treatment, has a change in ownership, or makes changes that are not in compliance with SWRCB DDW drinking water regulations, then an amendment to the water permit is required. The proposed project will likely need to expand or modify the current water system, and newly provide for potable drinking water service. As such, the project proponent will be required to undergo the permitting process with SWRCB DDW to obtain a PWS permit prior to leasing new facilities. A Consumer Confidence Report is required annually for each PWS (22 CCR 64481). Each report must contain information on the source of the water delivered, including the following: • The type of water delivered by the water system (e.g., surface water, groundwater, and the commonly used name [if any] and location of the body of water). • If a source water assessment has been complet ed, notification that the assessment is available, how to obtain it, the date it was completed or last updated, and a brief summary of the system's vulnerability to potential sources of contamination. The Consumer Confidence Report is intended to clearly communicate to the public the source of the water, threats to the source, and any water quality problems. Should Byron Airport develop a water system to provide drinking water, the project proponent may be required to obtain a PWS permit and publicize its annual drinking water quality reports (Consumer Confidence Report) online. Local Regulations Contra Costa County General Plan The Growth Management Element of the County General Plan identifies policies related to water and sanitary sewers. Policies related to stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-8 The Growth Management Element, under the subheading “Water,” states the following (Contra Costa County 2005b): The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development, and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on information furnished or available from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the proponent, or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project (“will serve letters”), actual hook- ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and quality availability. The County’s General Plan also establishes goals and policies for public services. The General Plan contains the following policies in Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element, that apply to water supply (Contra Costa County 2005a): Policy 7-16 Water service systems shall be required to meet regulatory standards for water delivery, water storage and emergency water supplies. Policy 7-21 At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant, or other sources. Policy 7-24 Opportunities shall be identified and developed in cooperation with water service agencies for use of non-potable water, including ground water, reclaimed water, and untreated surface water, for other than domestic use. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-9 Policy 7-25 Land uses and activities that could result in contamination of groundwater supplies shall be identified, monitored and regulated to minimize the risk of such contamination. Policy 7-26 The need for water system improvements shall be reduced by encouraging new development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use. Policy 7-27 The reclamation of water shall be encouraged as a supplement to existing water supplies. Policy 7-28 The County shall encourage its water serving agencies to prepare written drought contingency plans and hold public hearings on these plans. These plans sh ould identify the size of needed drought capacity reserves. In requests for capacity verification for new development, the County shall require that the serving agency exclude these reserves from its operating capacities for the purpose of the verification . Water Well and Small Water System Permitting Contra Costa Environmental Health works with 125 small water systems to make sure that the cleanest, safest, and most reliable drinking water possible is delivered to approximately 12,000 users (Contra Costa County 2018a). A small water system has less than 200 service connections (Contra Costa County 2018a). Those operating small water systems in the County must possess a valid water supply permit from Contra Costa Environmental Health, provide an emergency notification plan in case of a health emergency, and perform required monitoring and reporting of water quality as specified by state regulations (County Municipal Code 414-4.401–417, Small Water Systems). The Contra Costa Environmental Health Land Use Program protects the groundwater of the County by reviewing the plans for well designs, issuing permits for the construction and destruction of wells and soil borings, and conducting inspections during drilling to make sure wells and soil borings will be installed or destroyed in a way that does not contaminate the County’s groundwater (Contra Costa County 2018b). Wells and soil borings that require permits from Contra Costa Environmental Health include water wells, dewatering wells, monitoring wells, cathodic protection wells, geothermal wells, piezometers, inclinometers, soil vapor probes, CPTs, and soil borings (including geotechnical borings) (Contra Costa County 2018b). Any work on wells (e.g., installation, modification, destruction) must be performed by California-licensed well contractor (C-57 license) approved by the department (County Municipal Code 414-4.801–809, Wells). 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-10 Septic System Permitting Septic systems, also known as on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTSs), are regulated by the County Municipal Code, Chapter 420-6, Sewage Collection and Disposal. Improperly designed or poorly constructed or maintained OWTSs can contaminate groundwater. The Land Use Program reviews OWTS design plans and inspects the construction of OWTSs to prevent threats to groundwater and public health. The permits are intended to enforce applicable septic system siting, sizing, and design guidelines to protect water quality and comply with Basin Plan provisions. Land Use Program staff investigate complaints of improperly functioning OWTSs, and review applications for building permits on lots served by OWTSs. 3.14.2.2 Wastewater Federal and State Regulations The discharge of treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. This authority is administered through the Central Valley RWQCB. Please refer to Section 3.8 of this EIR for additional discussion of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Local Regulations Contra Costa County General Plan The County General Plan Growth Management Element, under the subheading “Sanitary Sewer,” states the following (Contra Costa County 2005b): The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on information furnished or available from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the proponent, or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the sewer system if the development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project (“will serve letters”), actual hook- 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-11 ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability. The County’s General Plan also establishes goals and policies for public services. The General Plan contains the following policies in Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element that apply to wastewater (Contra Costa County 2005a): Policy 7-29 Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with waste discharge requirements established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste discharge requirements shall not be approved. Policy 7-30 Sewer service agencies shall be encouraged to establish service boundaries and develop treatment facilities to meet future service needs based on the growth policies contained in the County and cities' General Plans. Policy 7-31 Urban development shall be encouraged within the sewer Spheres of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Expansion into new areas within the Urban Limit Line but beyond the Spheres of Influence should be restricted to those areas where urban development can meet growth management standards included in this General Plan. Policy 7-32 Development of rural residences, or other uses, that will be served by septic tank and leachfields, shall be discouraged in areas with high groundwater levels or soils with poor percolation characteristics. Policy 7-33 At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate that wastewater treatment capacity can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the wastewater treatment system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant, or other sources. Policy 7-37 The need for sewer system improvements shall be reduced by requiring new development to incorporate water conservation measures which reduce flows into the sanitary sewer system. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-12 County Sewage Ordinance Title 4, Division 420, of the County Municipal Code addresses sewage and collection. The Municipal Code identifies requirements for the installation of sewer lines and the construction of sewage processing plants. Construction of wastewater facilities is subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the County Health Officer. 3.14.2.3 Stormwater Stormwater runoff is regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Please refer to Section 3.8 of this EIR for applicable regulations. 3.14.2.4 Energy Supply Federal Regulations There are no federal regulations relevant to energy supply. State Regulations Title 24 of the CCR requires the use of energy-efficient appliances in all new residential, commercial, and educational facilities. No special permits for electrical hook-up, gas hook-up, or other energy sources are required; however, building permits and compliance with adopted building codes are required for these services. PG&E’s electric and gas services are provided in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations. Cable and telephone services are required to be provided in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations. Local Regulations There are no local regulations relevant to energy supply. 3.14.2.5 Solid Waste Federal Regulations There are no federal regulations relevant to solid waste. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-13 State Regulations California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act – Assembly Bill 939 Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, mandated a focus on the conservation of natural resources. Cities and counties were required to create comprehensive source reduction, recycling, and composting programs (Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq.). The goal of these programs is to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills by 50%. The focus of this bill was a major change, shifting the emphasis from landfill disposal toward waste reduction, recycling, and composting whenever possible. This approach aims to conserve natural resources, save energy, decrease pollution, and provide new jobs in the waste industry. Assembly Bill 939 established the following priorities for waste management: • Waste reduction • Recycling and composting • Controlled combustion of waste to generate electricity • Landfilling Mandatory Commercial Recycling— AB 341 AB 341 was adopted as part of the AB 32 Scoping Plan by the Air Resources Board pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act on January 17, 2012. The legislation declares as a policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. The regulation requires businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings of five units or more to arrange for recycling services. The measure focuses on increasing commercial waste diversion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling—AB 1826 AB 1826 was enacted in October 2014 in order to divert commercial organic waste from landfills. The measure requires businesses and multifamily residential dwellings of five or more units to recycle organic waste on and after April 1, 2016 depending on how much solid waste they generate per week. The law includes phasing of requirements over time to ensure that the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases gradually. Mandatory Organics Recycling—SB 1383 Senate Bill 1383 was passed in September 2016, which established methane emissions reduction targets to reduce emissions from short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 aims to achieve a 50 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-14 percent reduction in the 2014 level of statewide organic waste disposal by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. Cities and Counties are required to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion programs that focus on recovering edible food for human consumption and diverting organic material from the landfill. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase organic waste diversion from landfills, feed people, and maximize use of existing resources. SB 1383 established the following requirements for Jurisdictions: • Mandatory organics collection program • Container contamination minimization • Container color requirement • Container labeling requirement • Edible Food Recovery Program • Organic waste recycling capacity planning • Procurement of recovered organic waste products Enforcement Program Local Regulations Contra Costa County General Plan The County’s General Plan establishes goals and policies for public services. The General Plan contains the following policies in Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element, that apply to solid waste (Contra Costa County 2005a): Policy 7-88 Solid waste disposal capacity shall be considered in County and city land use planning and permitting activities, along with other utility requirements, such as water and sewer service. Policy 7-91 Solid waste resource recovery (including recycling, composting, and waste to energy) shall be encouraged so as to extend the life of sanitary landfills, reduce the environmental impact of solid waste disposal, and to make use of valuable resources, provided that specific resource recovery programs are economically and environmentally desirable. Policy 7-92 Waste diversion from landfills due to resource recovery activities shall be subject to goals included in the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Public agencies and the private sector should strive to meet these aggressive goals. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-15 County Refuse Ordinance Title 4, Division 418, of the County Municipal Code addresses solid waste, including collection, disposal sites, and recycling requirements for landfills. Solid waste collection and disposal is regulated by the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. Divisio n 418 of the Municipal Code also provides for local implementation of the goals and purposes of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s impacts to utilities and service systems are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A significant impact related to utilities and service systems would occur if a project would: 1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2. Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. 3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. 4. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. 5. Not comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 3.14.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.14-1. The project would result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Potentially Significant) Water The project site is not connected to public water services; instead, the project site relies on existing on-site water wells and a 4,000-gallon on-site water tank for its domestic, non-potable water. Bottled water is used for drinking water. Development of the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the existing system, resulting in a potentially significant impact. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-16 Development of the proposed project would require additional water sources. The discussion of water supply is found in Impact 3.14-2, below. This analysis is based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project (included as Appendix I of this EIR). The water supply for development of the proposed project would be from one of three potentially feasible sources: • On-site development and treatment of additional groundwater • Importation of treated water from Discovery Bay • Importation and on-site treatment of additional water from BBID The project could use groundwater, but additional well development would be required, and on- site treatment would be needed for potable water. Potential impacts to groundwater are discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIR. Importation of treated water from Discovery Bay would require the construction of a water main and would likely require a booster pump and water storage tank on the airport property (Mead & Hunt 2013). Importation of BBID water would require construction of a transmission line. A BBID canal carrying untreated water, Canal 45, crosses the project site along the northeastern edge of Runway 12-30. However, it is not clear that a direct connection to Canal 45 would be allowed, in which case a transmission line would be constructed to Byron Airport (Mead & Hunt 2013). In addition, BBID water is untreated, and a treatment facility would need to be constructed on the project site. Mitigation Measure (MM) UTIL-1 describes the process to identify and develop the preferred water source prior to project implementation. MM-UTIL-1 requires that the applicant secure appropriate agreements and entitlements with off-site providers prior to allowing development with new human occupancies to occur. Construction of on-site water facilities would have impacts similar to the development of the proposed aviation and non-aviation land uses described in this EIR. Off-site impacts would be similar to the proposed project, including impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, and transportation. The indirect impacts and applicable mitigation are discussed in Section 3.14.6, Level of Significance After Mitigation. Wastewater The increase in wastewater production associated with the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the existing septic system and leach field. The Byron Airport Infrastructure Study estimated that an additional 42,000 square feet could be developed at Byron Airport and be served 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-17 by existing infrastructure (Mead & Hunt 2013). At this time, however, the septic system is near capacity and would not support additional uses as currently configured (Williams 2019). The Byron Airport Infrastructure Study considered two potential wastewater generation rates (Mead & Hunt 2013). The Infrastructure Study compared two generation rates for bulk warehousing and industrial development: the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s Collection System Master Plan rate of 1,000 gpd per gross acre, and the City of Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet of building square footage. The Infrastructure Study used the Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet, resulting in an estimated 96,000 gpd build-out demand. The development assumptions in the Infrastructure Study are greater than for the proposed project (146.9 acres and 3,840,000 square feet of building space, compared to 70 acres and 941,000 square feet of building space for the proposed project). Applying the Oakland rate to the proposed project would result in an estimated wastewater flow of 23,525 gpd. However, the Town of Discovery Bay, which contains the nearest wastewater treatment plant, uses a wastewater generation rate of 2,000 gpd per acre of industrial development and 1,600 gpd per acre of commercial development (Discovery Bay Community Services District 2012). Using these flow rates, wastewater flow would be 89,920 gpd for non-aviation uses.2 Development of the proposed project would, therefore, exceed septic system capacity, resulting in a potentially significant impact to water quality. MM-UTIL-2 would require implementation of a wastewater system, per the recommendations of the Byron Airport Infrastructure Study (Mead & Hunt 2013), which studied several options for expansion of the on-site sewer system. The options include requiring each new use or development to provide for its own wastewater disposal, in effect distributing wastewater treatment to smaller leach fields throughout the site, or development of centralized treatment though use of an on-site package wastewater treatment plant and establishment of collection pipelines. For an on-site treatment plant, effluent disposal may be accomplished through landscape irrigation if the effluent is treated to a level to meet Title 22 CCR standards. A third option is connection to an existing sewer system: either the Discovery Bay Community Services District or the Byron Sanitary District. Connection to Discovery Bay would involve off-site construction of a force main and likely modifications to the existing sewage lift station (or a new lift station). Connection to Byron Sanitary District would likely require an expansion of Byron Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment facility. Connection to either Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy. A potential scenario would be the expansion of the septic system to accommodate aviation development (which tends to have very low flows), and construction of a package wastewater treatment plant for the non-aviation uses. The location of the runway would likely make sewer connections between the aviation and non-aviation areas infeasible. Whichever option for on-site 2 35.6 acres of warehousing and light industrial development at 2,000 gpd per acre, plus 11.7 acres of commercial development at 1,600 gpd per acre would yield 89,920 gpd . 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-18 wastewater treatment is selected, it would be required to comply with applicable local, RWQCB, and SWRCB permitting requirements meant to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters, and to comply with Basin Plan water quality objectives. Depending on the type, location, and destination of the wastewater discharge, future facilities may be required to conform with the County Sewage Collection and Disposal Ordinance (Chapter 420-6), the Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation and Maintenance of On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS Policy, Resolution No. 2012-0032), and/or waste discharge requirements. Given the constraints on the existing wastewater disposal system and the engineering/permitting constraints of various options, the development of non-aviation uses would likely require construction of a package sewage treatment plant requiring a NPDES Permit and/or Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley RWQCB. Wastewater system permitting would include effluent limitations, discharge specifications, and receiving water limitations designed specifically for the location and type of discharge, and waste discharge requirements would include monitoring and reporting program requirements meant to verify that the objectives of the waste discharge requirement permit are being met. Furthermore, because on-site wastewater treatment would occur within the development footprint of the project, its potentially significant environmental effects with regard to other issue areas have been addressed in this EIR. For these reasons, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on water quality. Construction of on-site facilities would occur in one of the areas identified for development, and would have impacts similar to the development of the proposed aviation and non-aviation land uses, including impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, and transportation (see Section 3.14.6). Any proposed facility must comply with federal and state water quality requirements, as permitted through the Central Valley RWQCB, in addition to approvals by the County Public Works Director and Health Officer. Connection to existing off-site facilities would require construction of a sewer line. The impacts of off-site mitigation are discussed in Section 3.14.6. Stormwater The project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of off-site stormwater drainage facilities. However, construction of new stormwater drainage facilities would be required within the development footprint of the proposed project. Because all such facilities would be located on site, they are included in the environmental analysis for each issue area addressed by this EIR. Impacts related to the expansion of the existing on-site drainage system would be less than significant. Please refer to Section 3.8 of this EIR for additional discussion of drainage and water quality. MM- HYD-1, through implementation of a Master/Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan, is designed to 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-19 avoid or substantially minimize water quality impacts and would require individual facilities to develop project-specific Stormwater Control Plans. Dry Utilities As discussed in Section 3.14.1, energy and communications infrastructure is available on or near Byron Airport. Electrical power is supplied to the project site by PG&E by a 12-kilovolt line from Holey Road. This connection is adequate to serve proposed development at the project site (Mead & Hunt 2013). Individual service connections would be constructed as part of the overall development of the proposed project. Natural gas is not currently used at Byron Airport, but is available. AT&T provides telecommunications service. A fiber-optic connection is available. Construction of service connections for dry utilities is assumed in the overall development of the proposed project and is considered within this impact analysis. The impact would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed project’s requirements would exceed existing water and wastewater infrastructure, which would have a potentially significant impact without mitigation. The construction impacts associated with expansion of water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure are addressed elsewhere in this EIR and do not represent new significant impacts. Adequate energy and telecommunications capacity is available to the project site. Impact 3.14-2. The project would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. (Potentially Significant) The expansion of Byron Airport would result in a substantial increase in on-site water use. The estimated construction water demand for the proposed project is 31 acre-feet spread out over a 10- year build-out period, equivalent to an average of 3.1 acre-feet per year (Appendix I). Operations and maintenance activities for the proposed project would require a water demand that would increase to approximately 36 acre-feet per year by the end of the 10-year build-out period. Because a definitive source of water for the proposed project has not yet been identified, three sources are examined as potential supplies: on-site groundwater, imported water from the Town of Discovery Bay (Discovery Bay), and additional imported water from the BBID. On-site groundwater was determined to be the supply with the least potential, as there is evidence of low yields and poor groundwater quality from existing wells. However, extraction of on-site groundwater may potentially be used to provide redundancy and backup for another supply. The Discovery Bay water supply is exclusively from groundwater, and the analysis indicates that Discovery Bay could reliably support the proposed project currently and through the 20-year planning period. The BBID service area includes part of the project site, and the BBID supplies to the area are mainly surface water diverted from State Water Project facilities. The BBID supply would likely support the proposed project’s water demand through the planning period (Appendix I). 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-20 Currently, the well serving the airport property is insufficient to serve additional project development. This impact is potentially significant. According to the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed project, at the programmatic level of analysis, sufficient water supplies are available to serve its water demand under normal and dry conditions, including existing and planned land uses, over the 20-year projection period (Appendix I). This would be accomplished through the use of one or more of the aforementioned options. However, as development under the proposed project proceeds, each of the potential supplies considered would require additional feasibility analysis to determine the actual potential for project implementation, and would require appropriate agreements (e.g., will-serve letter) from the off-site suppliers before any development requiring potable water could be permitted. This process is incorporated into MM-UTIL-1. Impact 3.14-3. The project would exceed the current wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Potentially Significant) The project site is not currently served by a wastewater treatment provider. The airport is currently served by a septic system which does not have capacity for the proposed project. This impact is potentially significant. As discussed for Impact 3.14-1, Byron Airport may seek to connect with the Discovery Bay Community Services District or the Byron Sanitary District or could require developers to incorporate on-site wastewater disposal systems into their development plans. Implementation of MM-UTIL-2 would ensure that, should an off-site wastewater treatment provider be used, the feasibility of using it would be evaluated, including a determination of adequate capacity for current and future users. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.14-4. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Less than Significant) Solid waste generation for the proposed project were estimated using rates provided by CalRecycle, and are shown in Table 3.14-1. Table 3.14-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Use ksf Persons Rate unit lbs/day tons/day Non-Aviation Use Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution 274 274 13.82 employee 3787 Light Industry/Business Park 213 298 41.64 employee 8869 Office 81 325 6 lbs/ksf 486 Commercial 91 522 6 lbs/ksf 546 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-21 Table 3.14-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Use ksf Persons Rate unit lbs/day tons/day Subtotal Non-Avaiation Use 13688 6.844 Aviation Use Aircraft Storage 128 32 7 lbs/emp 224 Aviation 154 77 7 lbs/emp 539 Subtotal Aviation Use 763 0.3815 Total 7.2255 Source: CalRecycle 2019b The project site can be served by either the Altamont Landfill or the Keller Canyon Landfill, which are the two closest full-service landfills. As discussed in Section 3.14.1.5, the Keller Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining lifespan of approximately 49 years, and the Altamont Landfill has capacity through 2045. Keller Canyon Landfill has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 3,500 tons, while Altamont has 11,150 tons. Assuming a total waste generation of 7.2 tons per day at project buildout (see Table 3.14-1), this would represent 0.2% and 0.06% of the maximum throughput, respectively. Construction waste cannot be disposed of at these facilities. However, facilities located in Byron (Byron Crushing & Grinding Services and Woodmill Recycling Company) and the Mt. Diablo Recycling Center & Transfer Station in Pittsburg can accept construction and demolition material for proper recycling. State and local diversion requirements (further described in Impact 3.14-5) for construction materials and operational waste would apply to the proposed project, significantly reducing the amount of daily waste. Therefore, the proposed project can be adequately served by existing landfills and solid waste facilities with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs, so impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.14-5. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant) The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (AB 939) as well as state goals for recycling (AB 341) and organics diversion (AB 1826 and SB 1383). The project is also subject to County General Plan Policy 7-91, which encourages solid waste resource recovery, and Policy 7-92, which encourages the diversion of waste from landfills to extend the life of existing landfills; and Division 418 of the County Municipal Code. The proposed project would dispose of all solid, non-recyclable waste at authorized sites, such as landfills (see Impact 3.14-4). All contractors hauling waste for construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with County Ordinance 2004-16, which requires the reduction of construction and demolition debris to landfills. Airport tenants are required to contract with qualified waste management services. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-22 The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding compliance with all applicable solid waste regulations. 3.14.5 Mitigation Measures MM-UTIL-1 Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses, or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that would increase water demand in excess of the current airport well system, Contra Costa County (County) shall take one of the following actions: a. Construct additional on-airport wells and water treatment facilities to support the proposed development. The project Water Supply Assessment estimates that up to four wells may be required to support buildout of the development program. The County shall obtain a water supply permit from the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water, a well drilling permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division, and all other applicable permits and approvals prior to development. b. Obtain an off-site potable water supply from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District or the Town of Discovery Bay. The County shall not permit development to proceed until the appropriate agreements or will-serve letters have been obtained from the chosen supplier(s) and plans for construction of necessary transmission lines have been approved by the County. MM-UTIL-2 Prior to (1) the development of non-aviation uses or (2) the expansion of aviation uses that involve additional human occupancy, Contra Costa County shall take one of the following actions: a. Expand the on-site septic system to accommodate forecasted development wastewater flows. A permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division (CCCEHD)shall be obtained prior to development. b. Construct an on-site package wastewater plant. The plant design, which demonstrates adequate capacity for the development program, must be approved by the CCCEHD. Prior to approval of development, Water Discharge Requirements (WDR) must be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. c. Obtain service from the Town of Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District. The County must confirm with the provider that there is adequate service capacity, and obtain a will serve letter for airport development. Plans for construction of a sewer transmission line to the off-site provider must be approved by all responsible County agencies. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-23 3.14.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM-UTIL-1, MM-UTIL-2, and MM-HYD-1 (see Section 3.8), Impact 3.14-1 would be reduced to less than significant. Impact 3.14-2 would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM-UTIL-1. Impact 3.14-3 would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM-UTIL-2. Indirect Impacts Implementation of MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-2 may result in secondary impacts to the environment. Implementation of these mitigation measures would require construction of additional on-site and/or off-site infrastructure. To the extent that additional on-site infrastructure, such as on-site water or wastewater treatment facilities, pump stations, and water storage facilities, would be required, this EIR assumes full build-out of the aviation and airport-related development areas, including supportive infrastructure. Off-site provision of water or wastewater service would require construction of transmission lines. The most likely pipeline route from Byron Airport to the community of Byron (Armstrong Road to Byron Highway) were considered, and no substantial environmental constraints were noted. The construction of water and sewer transmission lines were included in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses assumptions (see Sections 3.2 and 3.6 of this EIR). Only unusual project or site circumstances, per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152(d) and 15168(c), would require additional environmental review of this project-supportive infrastructure. The following mitigation measures would apply to the construction of off-site infrastructure that may be built in compliance with MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-2: • MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-6 (see Section 3.3) • MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-CUL-3 (see Section 3.4) • MM-NOI-1 (see Section 3.10) The impact of providing utilities to the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of all applicable mitigation measures. 3.14.7 Cumulative Cumulative impacts to utilities may occur when project demand, in addition to existing and future users, exceeds the capacity of utility systems, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities, the construction of which may have a significant effect on the environment. Construction of on-site utility systems, including water, wastewater, and stormwater, would serve only Byron Airport. No off-site users would contribute to demand for these utilities. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur for on-site utilities. The proposed project may receive water and 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-24 wastewater service from off-site providers, including the BBID, Byron Sanitary District, and Town of Discovery Bay. These providers develop plans, including Urban Water Master Plans and Sewer Master Plans, consistent with growth assumptions used by the County to plan for future service demands. MM-UTIL-1 and MM-UTIL-2 provide that any water or wastewater system that provides service to the proposed project would only be used if feasibility studies demonstrate that adequate cumulative capacity exists. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur for provision of off-site utilities. 3.14.8 References Cited CA Drinking Water Watch. 2016. “Water System Details: Water System No. CA0706110, Byron Airport.” Activity date May 10, 2016. Accessed December 15, 2018. https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_ number=8868&tinwsys_st_code=CA. CalReycle. 2019a. SWIS Facility Detail Keller Canyon Landfill (07-AA-0032). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4407?siteID=228 Accessed October 18, 2019. CalRecycle. 2019b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates/ Accessed October 18, 2019. Central Valley RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley. Fourth edition. Revised June 2015, with approved amendments. Contra Costa County. 2018a. Small Water Systems. Website. Available at https://cchealth.org/ eh/small-water/. Accessed on December 15, 2018. Contra Costa County. 2018b. Land Use Program. Wells and Soil Borings. Website. Available at https://cchealth.org/eh/land-use/#simpleContained2. Accessed on December 15, 2018. Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30917/Ch7-Public-Facilities_ Services-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020, Chapter 4, Growth Management Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30914/Ch4-Growth- Management-Element?bidId=. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-25 Discovery Bay Community Services District. 2012. Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. February 2012. Google Earth. 2018. “Elevation Profile and Slope Information Tool, Mt. Shasta, California.” Accessed December 14, 2018. LFA (Leigh Fisher Associates). 2005. Airport Layout Drawing. Sheet 2 of 11. Prepared for Contra Costa County Airports. Approved by the Federal Aviation Administration on March 11, 2005. Mead & Hunt. 2013. Infrastructure Study for the Byron Airport. Prepared by Mead & Hunt for the County of Contra Costa. August 2013. Waste Management. 2019. “Sustainability.” Accessed September 2019. http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp. Williams Sanitary Service, Inc. 2019. “Septic Inspection, CCC Airport, Byron, CA.” October 3, 2019. 3.14 – UTILITIES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.14-26 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-1 3.15 ENERGY CONSUMPTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must include a detailed statement identifying all significant effects on the environment of a proposed project, and mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy” (California Public Resources Code Section 21100[b][1],[3]). Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, Energy Conservation, provides recommendations for information that should be included in an EIR to ensure that “energy implications are considered in project decisions” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). Appendix F directs that EIRs should include “discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (California Public Resources Code Section 21100[b][3]) (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).” Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines lists potential energy impacts that may be relevant to the energy conservation analysis in an EIR. Where a listed item is applicable or relevant to a project, the EIR should consider it. This analysis for the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) applied the following relevant listed items from Appendix F, subdivision (II)(F)(C), to the discussion of impacts: energy requirements and energy use efficiencies of the proposed project by fuel type and amount for each stage of the project, the effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity, the effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy, compliance with existing energy standards, the effects of the project on energy resources, and the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. The 2018 update to the CEQA Guidelines includes Section 15126.2(b), which considers impacts resulting from project energy use. The updated guidelines specify that an EIR must analyze project energy use and mitigate energy use if a project may result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption, or wasteful use of energy resources. The analysis should include energy consumption for all project phases and components, and include transportation-related energy use. In addition to compliance with the California Building Code, other project features such as project size, location, orientation, equipment use, and renewable energy features should be considered in the analysis. In accordance with Section 15126.2(b) of the updated CEQA Guidelines and with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR provides relevant information and analyses that address the energy implications of the proposed project. This section presents a summary of the proposed project’s anticipated energy needs, impacts, and conservation measures. The proposed project’s energy needs were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) outputs (see 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-2 Appendix C of this EIR). This emissions model contains typical electricity use and natural gas use for a range of land uses, and estimates for the number of vehicle trips that may be associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. This section summarizes the energy use estimates of the proposed project and compares them to those of the existing on-site land uses, to regional and local supply and demand under existing conditions, and to regional and local supply and demand that has been forecasted for the future. 3.15.1 Existing Conditions The proposed project, including vehicular trips to and from the project site, would result in the consumption of energy in a variety of forms, namely electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, Part II, Section B, states that the “Environmental Setting may include existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region and locality.” Consistent with this recommendation, this subsection characterizes existing energy supplies and energy use patterns for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. 3.15.1.1 Electricity According to the California Energy Commission (CEC) California Energy Demand Revised Forecast 2018–2030, California used approximately 285,701 gigawatts per hour (GWh) of electricity in 2016 (CEC 2018a). CEC’s Energy Consumption Database states that in 2017, electricity consumption in California totaled approximately 288,614 GWh (CEC 2018b). Electricity usage in California for different land uses varies substantially by the types of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity- consuming devices within a building. Due to the state’s energy efficiency standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s per-capita electricity use has remained stable for more than 40 years, while the national average has steadily increased (CEC 2018c). Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to the community of Byron, including the project site. PG&E, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation, provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16 million customers across a 70,000-square-mile service area (PG&E 2017). According to the CEC, approximately 104,148 GWh of electricity was used in PG&E’s service area in 2017 (CEC 2018d). Demand forecasts anticipate that approximately 124,805 GWh of electricity will be used in PG&E’s service area in 2029, the estimated year of project operation (CEC 2018a). PG&E receives electric power from a variety of sources. According to PG&E’s 2017 Annual Report, 33.1% of PG&E’s power came from eligible renewables in 2017, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass power, and Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible hydroelectric (PG&E 2017). This is an increase from the 28% that PG&E maintained for the 2014–2016 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-3 compliance period (CPUC 2016). The CEC estimates that approximately 29% of the state’s electricity generation in 2017 came from renewable energy (CEC 2018e). The RPS Program establishes a goal for California to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010 and to 33% by 2020. Recent legislation revised the current RPS target for California to obtain 50% of total retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027. Within Contra Costa County (County), annual non-residential electricity use is approximately 6,809 GWh per year, as reported by the state’s Energy Consumption Database for 2017 (CEC 2018f). Electrical power is currently supplied to the project site by PG&E via a 12-kilovolt line in Holey Road. It is anticipated that the proposed project would obtain electrical service from this existing conduit and that this line is sufficient to supply power to the proposed project. 3.15.1.2 Natural Gas According to the CEC, California used approximately 12,571 million therms1 of natural gas in 2017 (CEC 2018g). By sector, industrial uses utilize 35.9% of the state’s natural gas, followed by 35.5% for electric power, 16.9% for residential uses, 10.1% for commercial uses, and 1.6% fo r transportation uses (EIA 2019a). Although the supply of natural gas in the United States and production in the lower 48 states has increased greatly since 2008, California produces little, and imports 90% of its supply of natural gas (CEC 2019). Gas supplies are generally imported via pipelines from the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada. PG&E provides the community of Byron and the County with natural gas service. During the winter, most natural gas resources are imported from Canada on a supply-and-demand basis, and the balance is supplied from California production wells. During the summer, this ratio is reversed. During the summer, when gas prices are lower, gas is stored in underground holders for use during winter peak-use periods. In 2017, PG&E purchased approximately 291,000 million cubic feet2 of natural gas, the majority of which was purchased under contracts with a term of 1 year or less (PG&E 2017). In the California mid-energy demand scenario, natural gas demand is projected to have an annual growth rate of 0.43% in PG&E’s service territory from 2016 to 2030. As of 2017, approximately 4,743 million therms was used in PG&E’s service area per year (CEC 2018h). Around the time of project operation in 2029, natural gas demand is anticipated to be approximately 4,865 million therms per year in PG&E’s service area (CEC 2018i). 1 One therm is equal to 100,000 British thermal units (BTUs) or 100 kBTU. 2 One cubic foot of natural gas has approximately 1,020 BTUs of natural gas or 1.02 kBTUs of natural gas. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-4 The total capacity of natural gas available to PG&E in 2018 is estimated to be 5,200 million cubic feet per day. In 2020, the total capacity available is estimated to be 4,317 million cubic feet per day (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2018). This amount is approximately equivalent to 44 million therms per day, or 4,398,950 mBritish thermal units (mmBTU). Over a year, the available capacity would, therefore, be approximately 17 billion therms per year, which is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in PG&E’s service area. Within the County, annual natural gas consumption is approximately 946 million therms for non-residential uses, and 1,118 million therms in total (CEC 2018j). Currently, there is no natural gas service provided to the project site. However, there is a PG&E high-pressure natural gas transmission line that crosses Runway 5-23. 3.15.1.3 Petroleum Transportation accounts for nearly 40% of California’s energy consumption according to the CEC (2013). In California, petroleum fuels refined from crude oil are the dominant source of energy for transportation sources. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California used approximately 672 million barrels of petroleum in 2016 (EIA 2019b). This equates to a daily use of approximately 1.8 million barrels of petroleum. There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel, so California consumes approximately 76 million gallons of petroleum per day, adding up to an annual consumption of 28 billion gallons of petroleum. By sector, transportation accounts for 85.5% of California’s petroleum consumption, followed by 11.1% for industrial uses, 2.5% for commercial, 1% for residential, and 0.01% for electric power uses (EIA 2019b). Petroleum usage in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel. Production of petroleum in the United States was 20 million barrels per day in 2016, which equates to 840 million gallons per year (EIA 2019b). California has implemented policies to improve vehicle efficiency and to support use of alternative transportation, which are described in Section 3.15.2, Relevant Plan, Policies, and Ordinances. As such, the CEC anticipates an overall decrease of gasoline demand in the state over the next decade (CEC 2018a). 3.15.2 Relevant Plan, Policies, and Ordinances 3.15.2.1 Federal Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-5 vehicle standards. In 2010, fuel economy standards were set at 27.5 miles per gallon for new passenger cars and 23.5 miles per gallon for new light trucks. Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for motor vehicles, the act includes other provisions related to energy efficiency: • Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202) • Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) • Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441) This federal legislation requires ever-increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum (Section 202, Renewable Fuel Standard). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS Program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders. The RFS Program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS Program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS Program was expanded in several key ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program is referred to as RFS2 and includes the following: • EISA expanded the RFS Program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. • EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. • EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one. • EISA required the EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces (EPA 2015). 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-6 Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.” Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units On October 23, 2015, the EPA published a final rule (effective December 22, 2015) establishing Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (80 Federal Register [FR] 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan. These guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil- fuel-fired electric generating units. The guidelines establish carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance rates representing the best system of emissions reduction for two subcategories of existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: (1) fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam- generating units and (2) stationary combustion turbines. The rule includes state-specific CO2 goals reflecting the CO2 emission performance rates and guidelines for the development, submittal, and implementation of state plans that establish emission standards or other measures to implement the CO2 emission performance rates. Initial plan compliance with state emissions goals begins in 2022, with full compliance with final goals required by 2030. The goals are established by state in units of pounds of CO2 per net megawatt-hour or total short tons of CO2. For California, the goals for 2030 are 828 pounds of CO2 per net megawatt-hour, or 96.8 million short tons of CO2. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) anticipates that the state’s plan will rely heavily on existing programs such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, RPS, energy efficiency standards, and the Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulation (for compliance determinations) (CARB 2015). Concurrently, the EPA published a final rule (effective October 23, 2015) establishing Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (80 FR 64661–65120). The rule prescribes CO2 emissions standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. Separate standards of performance were set for fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam-generating units and fossil-fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines. The standards apply to new units commencing construction after January 8, 2014, or existing units commencing modification or reconstruction after June 18, 2014. The rule applies only to units with a base load rating greater than 250 million BTUs of fossil fuel per hour and serving a generator or generators capable of selling greater than 25 megawatts of electricity to a utility power distribution system. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court pending resolution of several lawsuits. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-7 EPA and NHTSA Joint Rule for Vehicle Standards On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for light - duty vehicles model years 2012 through 2016. The joint rule is intended to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. The EPA promulgated the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA promulgated CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This final rule follows the EPA and Department of Transportation’s joint proposal on September 15, 2009, and is the result of the President Obama’s May 2009 announcement of a national program to reduce GHGs and improve fuel economy. The final rule became effective on July 6, 2010 (EPA and NHTSA 2010). The EPA GHG standards required new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile by model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level through fuel economy improvements alone. The CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks were phased in from 2012 to 2016, with the final standards equivalent to 37.8 mpg for passenger cars and 28.8 mpg for light trucks, resulting in an estimated combined average of 34.1 mpg. Together, these standards will cut GHG emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. The rules will simultaneously reduce GHG emissions, improve energy security, increase fuel savings, and provide clarity and predictability for manufacturers (EPA and NHTSA 2010). In August 2012, the EPA and NHTSA approved a second round of GHG and CAFE standards for model years 2017 and beyond (EPA and NHTSA 2012). These standards will reduce motor vehicle GHG emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile, which is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if this level were achieved solely through improvements in fuel efficiency, for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025. A portion of these improvements, however, will likely be made through improvements in air-conditioning leakage and through use of alternative refrigerants, which would not contribute to fuel economy. The first phase of the CAFE standards (for model years 2017 to 2021) require, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, a range from 40.3 to 41.0 mpg by model year 2021. The second phase of the CAFE program (for model years 2022 to 2025) is projected to require, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, a range from 48.7 to 49.7 mpg by model year 2025. The second phase of standards has not been finalized due to the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel economy standards not more than five model years at a time. The regulations also include targeted incentives to encourage early adoption and introduction into the marketplace of advanced technologies to dramatically improve vehicle performance, including the following: • Incentives for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-8 • Incentives for hybrid technologies for large pickups and for other technologies that achieve high fuel economy levels on large pickups • Incentives for natural gas vehicles • Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real -world GHG reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards’ test procedures 3.15.2.2 State Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by the state Building Energy Efficiency Standards, included in Title 24. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of residential and non-residential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided these standards meet or exceed those provided in Title 24 guidelines. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. The current Title 24 standards are the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which became effective January 1, 2020. Title 24 also includes Part 11, California’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen). CALGreen establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requi rements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The 2019 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards. For nonresidential projects, some of the key mandatory CALGreen 2019 standards involve requirements related to bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, shade trees, water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas, recycled water supply systems, construction waste management, excavated soil and land clearing debris, and commissioning (24 CCR Part 11). Senate Bill 1368 On September 29, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006). The law limits long-term investments in baseload generation by the state’s utilities to those power plants that meet an emissions performance standard jointly established by the CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-9 The CEC has designed regulations that do the following (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006): • Establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to, publicly owned utilities of 1,100 pounds CO2 per megawatt-hour. This would encourage the development of power plants that meet California’s growing energy needs while minimizing their emissions of GHGs. • Require posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned utilities on long-term investments on the CEC website. This would facilitate public awareness of utility efforts to meet customer needs for energy over the long-term while meeting the state’s standards for environmental impact. • Establish a public process for determining the compliance of proposed investments with the emissions performance standard. Assembly Bill 1493 Adopted in 2002 by the state legislature, AB 1493 (“Pavley” regulations) required that CARB develop and adopt, no later than January 1, 2005, regulations to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The first California request to implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles, known as a waiver request, was made in December 2005 and was denied by the EPA in March 2008. That decision was based on a finding that California’s request to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles did not meet the Clean Air Act requirement of showing that the waiver was needed to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” The EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emissions reduction standards for new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that reduce GHG emiss ions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. These amendments are part of California’s commitment to a nationwide program to reduce new passenger-vehicle GHGs from 2012 through 2016. CARB’s September 2009 amendments will allow for California’s enforcement of the Pavley rule while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles. It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by approximately 22% in 2012 and 30% in 2016 while also improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-10 Executive Order S-1-07 Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S-1-07 set a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing regulation in April 2009. The regulation is expected to increase production of biofuels, including those from alternative sources, such as algae, wood, and agricultural waste. In addition, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard would drive the availability of plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel-cell power motor vehicles. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is anticipated to lead to the replacement of 20% of the fuel used in motor vehicles with alternative fuels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 In August 2008, the legislature passed, and on September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed, SB 375 (Steinberg), which addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. Regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035, as determined by CARB, are required to consider the emissions reductions associated with vehicle emissions standards (see SB 1493), the composition of fuels (see Executive Order S-1-07), and other CARB-approved measures to reduce GHG emissions. Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within their Regional Transportation Plan. The goal of the SCS is to establish a development plan for the region, which, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If an SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, an MPO must prepare an alternative planning strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. SB 375 provides incentives for streamlining CEQA requirements by substantially reducing the requirements for “transit priority projects,” as specified in SB 375, and eliminating the analysis of the impacts of certain residential projects on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of those projects when the projects are consistent with the SCS or alternative planning strategy. In September 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional MPOs. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the MPO for nine counties within the San Francisco Bay Area, including the County. The targets for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission are a per-capita reduction of GHG emissions by 7% by 2020 and by 15% by 2035. Achieving these goals through adoption of an SCS is the responsibility of the MPOs. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission prepared its original Regional Transportation Plan/SCS, titled Plan Bay Area, in July 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-11 2013. The region’s current Regional Transportation Plan/SCS covers 2017–2030 and was adopted on July 26, 2017. Truck and Bus Regulation, On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California. Amendments to this regulation were approved by CARB on April 25, 2014. The regulation applies to nearly all diesel-fueled, dual-fueled, or alternative diesel-fueled trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds that are privately or federally owned, and to privately and publicly owned school buses. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles. Heavier trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds must comply with a schedule by engine model year, or owners can report to show compliance with more flexible options. Starting January 1, 2012, heavier trucks were required to meet the engine model year schedule shown in Table 3.15-1. Fleets that comply with the schedule must install the best available particulate matter filter on 1996 model year and newer engines, and replace the vehicle 8 years later. Trucks with 1995 model year and older engines must be replaced starting in 2015. Replacements with a 2010 model year or newer engines meet the final requirements, but owners can also replace with used trucks that have a future compliance date on the schedule. For example, a replacement with a 2007 model year engine complies until 2023. By 2023, all trucks and buses must have 2010 model year engines with few exceptions. No reporting is required if complying with this schedule (CARB 2014). Table 3.15-1 Compliance Schedule by Engine Model Year for Vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 26,000 Pounds or Less Engine Model Year Requirements for Heavier Trucks from January 1 Pre-1994 Beginning in 2015, a 2010 engine or better 1994–1995 Beginning in 2016, a 2010 engine or better 1996–1999 PM filter from 2012 to 2020, then 2010 engine or better 2000–2004 PM filter from 2013 to 2021, then 2010 engine or better 2005–2006 PM filter from 2014 to 2022, then 2010 engine or better 2007–2009* No requirements until 2023, then 2010 engine or better 2010* Meets final requirement Source: CARB 2014. PM = particulate matter * Required a PM filter by January 1, 2014, if not originally equipped. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-12 Advanced Clean Cars Program In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 2011). To improve air quality, CARB created emissions standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that by 2025, cars will emit 75% less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold in 2011 (CARB 2011). To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and NHTSA, adopted GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; these standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% by 2025. The Zero-Emissions Vehicles Program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years. The Clean Fuels Outlet regulation will ensure that fuels such as electricity and hydrogen are available to meet the fueling needs of the advanced technology vehicles as they come to the market. Executive Order B-16-12 Governor Brown issued Executive Order S-16-12 on March 23, 2012. The executive order requires that state entities under the governor’s direction and control support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of ZEVs. It ordered CARB, the CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve the following by 2015: • The state’s major metropolitan areas will be able to accommodate ZEVs, each with infrastructure plans and streamlined permitting • The state’s manufacturing sector will be expanding ZEV and component manufacturing • The private sector’s investment in ZEV infrastructure will be growing • The state’s academic and research institutions will be contributing to ZEV research, innovation and education CARB, the CEC, and the California Public Utilities Commission, are also directed to establish benchmarks to help achieve the following goals by 2020: • The state’s ZEV infrastructure will be able to support up to 1 million vehicles • The costs of ZEV will be competitive with conventional combustion vehicles • ZEVs will be accessible to mainstream consumers 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-13 • There will be widespread use of ZEVs for public transportation and freight transport • Transportation sector GHG emissions will be falling as a result of the switch to ZEVs • Electric vehicle charging will be integrated into the electricity grid • The private sector’s role in the supply chain for ZEV component development and manufacturing will be expanding Benchmarks are also to be established to help achieve the following goals by 2025: • More than 1.5 million ZEVs will be on California roads and their market share will be expanding • Californians will have easy access to ZEV infrastructure • The ZEV industry will be a strong and sustainable part of California’s economy • California’s clean, efficient vehicles will annually displace at least 1.5 billion gallons of petroleum fuels On a statewide basis, Executive Order S-16-12 establishes a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. Cap-and-Trade Program To achieve the goals of AB 32, the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change included an early action to develop a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system (CARB 2008). The cap-and-trade program, which is a key element of California’s climate plan, took effect in January 2012, and compliance obligation began in January 2013. The cap-and-trade program sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85% of California’s GHG emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The cap-and-trade program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest-cost options to reduce emissions. The first phase of the cap-and-trade regulation included electricity generated in and imported into California, large combustion sources (i.e., generally those emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year), and certain industrial sectors. The second phase added providers of transportation fuels and other combustion fuels (e.g., natural gas, propane) to the cap-and-trade program. The regulation requires that emissions generated by these facilities and combustion of fuels be reduced over time under a declining “cap.” Renewable Energy Sources Established in 2002 under SB 1078 and accelerated by SB 107 (2006) and SB 2 (2011), California’s RPS obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-14 choice aggregators to procure 33% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Eligible renewable resources are defined in the 2013 RPS to include biodiesel; biomass; hydroelectric and small hydro (30 megawatts or less); Los Angeles Aqueduct hydro power plants; digester gas; fuel cells; geothermal; landfill gas; municipal solid waste; ocean thermal, ocean wave, and tidal current technologies; renewable-derived biogas; multifuel facilities using renewable fuels; solar photovoltaic; solar thermal electric; wind; and other renewables that may be defined later. Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 350 on October 7, 2015, which expanded the RPS by establishing a goal of 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses upon which an energy efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the California Public Utilities Commission, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. SB 350 also provides for the transformation of the California Independent System Operator into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states, and to improve the access of consumers served by the California Independent System Operator to those markets, pursuant to a specified process. SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero - carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California by 2045. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid, and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling. According to PG&E’s 2017 Annual Report, 33.1% of PG&E’s power came from eligible renewables in 2017 (PG&E 2017). This means that PG&E has already met the 33% renewable source requirement before 2020. This represents the off-site renewable sources available to the project through electricity provided by PG&E. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-15 3.15.2.3 Local Contra Costa County Contra Costa County General Plan The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005a) contains the following goals and policies that would apply to the proposed project: Goal 8-K To encourage the use of renewable resources where they are compatible with the maintenance of environmental quality. Goal 8-L To reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks of air pollution and energy shortages which could prevent orderly development. Goa l 8-R To achieve utilization of oil and gas resources in a manner beneficial to all County residents. Policy 8-100 Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. Policy 8-101 A safe, convenient and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving. Policy 8-101 A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving. The Transportation and Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005b) contains the following goals and policies that would apply to the proposed project: Goal 5-I To encourage the use of transit. Goal 5-J To reduce single-occupant auto commuting and encourage walking and bicycling. Goal 5-L To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources through provision of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Policy 5-3 Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi-public rights of way where feasible. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-16 Policy 5-11 The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non-motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. Policy 5-13 The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. Policy 5-21 New development shall contribute funds and/or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. Policy 5-23 All efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged. Policy 5-24 Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. Policy 5-25 Improvement of public transit shall be encouraged to provide for increased use of local, commuter and intercity public transportation. Policy 5-al Ensure that pedestrian connectivity is preserved or enhanced in new developments by providing short, direct pedestrian connections between land uses and to building entrances. Policy 5-be Incorporate sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian cut throughs, or other bicycle pedestrian improvements into new projects. Policy 5-bg Accommodate cyclists and pedestrians during construction of transportation improvements and other development projects. On December 4, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved a General Plan Amendment addressing energy efficiency and air pollution related to commercial and industrial projects larger than 10,000 square feet, as follows (Contra Costa County 2018a): Policy 8-113 New commercial and industrial projects exceeding 10,000 square feet of gross floor area shall incorporate measures to reduce or eliminate otherwise preventable air quality impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These measures may include, but are not limited to, requiring usage of zero-emission fleets and equipment, limiting unnecessary truck and equipment idling, reducing on-site 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-17 energy consumption, increasing on-site energy generation, reducing fugitive dust emissions, and contributing toward development of renewable energy projects in impacted communities. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan In 2015, the County adopted the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan (CAP), which provides a GHG emissions inventory, a GHG forecast, a GHG reduction target, and a set of strategies to respond to local contributions to climate change. Based on the state CEQA Guidelines and Bay Area Air Quality Management District criteria, the CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy (Contra Costa County 2015). The CAP establishes the County GHG reduction goal of reducing GHGs by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32. In addition, the CAP forecasts the potential GHG emissions and potential GHG reductions from proposed measures through 2035. The CAP outlines the reduction efforts in six major GHG source areas: energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, land use and transportation, solid waste, water conservation, and government operations. In addition, Appendix E of the County’s CAP provides a consistency checklist through which projects can demonstrate consistency and thereby conclude that their impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant under CEQA. Contra Costa County Green Building The County adopted the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as part of its building code, and set forth changes, additions, and deletions to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code in Chapter 74-4, Division 72, of its Municipal Code. Amended elements include Section 5.106.5.3, which sets forth requirements for the number of fully operational electric vehicles for new non-residential construction, and Section 5.408.1.3, which sets forth construction waste stream reduction requirements. The proposed project would be required to comply with these provisions. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan In 2003, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP). The CBPP was updated in 2009 to address changes since the adoption of the original CBPP, and again in 2018. The 2018 CBPP sets forth goals, objectives, and policy actions to improve and facilitate bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The CBPP assessed the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in the County, and identified a set of Countywide improvements that would encourage more people to walk and bicycle. The CBPP lays out the policy framework for the implementation of an overall vision for the County that consists of the following overarching goals (Contra Costa County 2018b): • Encourage more people to walk and bicycle • Increase safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-18 • Create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities • Increase the livability and attractiveness of Contra Costa’s communities and districts • Equitably serve all of Contra Costa’s communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits 3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance Section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance for evaluating whether a development project may result in significant impacts with regard to energy. Based on Section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant impact on energy consumption if the project would: a. Result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. b. Conflict with existing energy standards and regulations. c. Place a significant demand on local and regional energy supplies or require a substantial amount of additional capacity. Methodology A brief overview of the methodology applied to assess the proposed project’s potential impacts is provided below: Electricity. Proposed project electricity usage data was determined using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Electricity demand within PG&E’s service area was obtained from CEC reports (specifically, the California Energy Demand 2018–2030 Revised Forecast and 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report [CEC 2018a, 2018c]) and the CEC Energy Consumption Database. Electricity demand within the County was obtained from the CEC Energy Consumption Database. Natural Gas. Proposed project on-site natural gas usage data was estimated using CalEEMod. Regional natural gas demand data was obtained from the California Energy Demand Forecast and CEC Energy Consumption Database. Natural gas demand within the County was obtained from the CEC Energy Consumption Database. Information on natural gas supply was obtained from the 2018 California Gas Report. Petroleum. Potential impacts were assessed through projected traffic trip generation during construction and operation, as provided by the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix C of this EIR) and the Traffic Impact Analysis Report that was prepared for the project (Appendix H). Fuel 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-19 consumption factors were obtained using CalEEMod assumptions. Detailed model outputs and assumptions are included in Appendix C of this EIR. 3.15.4 Impacts Analysis Impact 3.15-1. The project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. (Less than Significant) Implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site and petroleum consumption in the project area during construction and operation relative to existing uses. Electricity Construction Use Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers would be provided by PG&E. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation, and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. Operational Use The project would involve construction and operation of airport-related and aviation uses at Byron Airport. The potential development may include up to 274,000 square feet of logistics/warehouse/distribution buildings, 213,000 square feet of light industry/business park, 81,000 square feet of office uses, 91,000 square feet of commercial uses, 128,000 square feet of airport storage, 154,000 square feet of aviation-related buildings, and associated parking. Existing aviation facilities within Byron Airport include 10 acres of aircraft storage area, 4 acres of apron, 125,000 square feet of hangars, and 2,400 square feet of office space. The majority of these existing facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. The operational phase of the proposed project would require electricity for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water, and the conveyance and/or disposal of wastewater would indirectly result in electricity usage. CalEEMod was used to estimate project emissions from electricity uses (see Appendix C for calculations). Default electricity generation rates in CalEEMod were used (based on the proposed land use and climate zone) and adjusted based on compliance with Title 24 standards for 2019. According to these estimations, the project 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-20 would consume approximately 8,741,078 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This would be a considerable increase in electricity use on the project site. The electricity demand calculation for the proposed project assumes compliance with Title 24 standards for 2019, which aim to improve the energy efficiency of non-residential buildings. The project’s impacts in the category of GHG emissions was determined to be potentially significant because the proposed project would increase GHG emissions and would not meet the following County CAP requirements (see Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR) (Contra Costa County 2015): • EE 1: New nonresidential development will install high efficiency appliances and insulation. • RE 1: New residential and nonresidential development will meet the standards to be solar ready as defined by the California Building Standards Code. • LUT 2: New multifamily (greater than five units) and nonresidential (greater than 10,000 square feet) developments will provide EV charging stations in designated parking spots. • LUT 4: New residential and nonresidential development will be located within one half-mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of a bus station. For the proposed project to meet the applicable CAP consistency checklist criteria, Mitigation Measures (MM) GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3 are proposed. MM-GHG-2 requires implementation of design features that would reduce demand for energy use. This includes obtaining Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for building construction where feasible, providing skylights to reduce electricity use, using energy-efficient appliances, and designing proposed buildings to be solar-ready. Furthermore, MM-GHG-3 requires water conservation design features to be incorporated into the proposed project. These measures address and reduce operational electricity usage from the proposed project (see Section 3.6 of this EIR for details). Additionally, the proposed project would comply with County General Plan Policy 8-113, which requires new commercial and industrial projects exceeding 10,000 square feet of gross floor area to incorporate measures to reduce GHG emissions (Contra Costa County 2018a). County policy also requires County-owned buildings to meet LEED Silver standards or higher. The aviation buildings other than the hangars, which do not have heating or cooling, would meet County requirements. The proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 standards, the County’s General Plan policies, and MM- GHG-1 and MM-GHG-2 would reduce operational electricity usage resulting from the proposed project. Therefore, the electricity consumption of the proposed project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-21 Natural Gas Construction Use Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the “Petroleum” subheading. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of project construction would be substantially less than that required for project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. Operational Use Operation of the proposed project would require natural gas for various purposes, including building heating and cooling and service water heating. Default natural gas usage rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate zone were used and adjusted based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards (see Appendix C for calculations). According to these estimations, the project would consume approximately 10,568,394 kBTU per year. The project site does not currently use natural gas. Therefore, natural gas consumption at the project site would substantially increase with the proposed project. For the proposed project to meet the applicable CAP consistency checklist criteria, MM -GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3 are proposed (see Section 3.6 of this EIR). MM-GHG-2 requires implementation of design features that would reduce demand for energy use. MM-GHG-3 requires water conservation design features to be incorporated into the proposed project that would reduce energy required for water heating. These measures would address and reduce operational natural gas usage from the proposed project (see Section 3.6 of this EIR for details). Additionally, the proposed project would comply with County General Plan Policy 8-113, which requires new commercial and industrial projects exceeding 10,000 square feet of gross floor area to incorporate measures to reduce GHG emissions (Contra Costa County 2018a). The proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 standards, the County’s General Plan policies, and MM-GHG- 2 and MM-GHG-3 would reduce operational natural gas usage related to the proposed project. Therefore, the natural gas consumption of the proposed project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant. Petroleum Construction Use Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities for the proposed project would rely on diesel fuel, as would haul trucks involved in removing the materials from 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-22 excavation. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout construction. It is assumed in this analysis that construction workers would travel to and from the site in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of project construction. The CalEEMod analysis discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, and included in Appendix C of this EIR lists the assumed equipment usage for each phase of construction. Based on that analysis, over all phases of construction, diesel-fueled construction equipment would run for an estimated 173,178 hours, as summarized in Table 3.15-2. Table 3.15-2 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment Construction Phase Hours of Equipment Use Airport Uses Site Preparation 2,240 Grading 7,344 Building Construction 69,156 Paving 3,456 Architectural Coating 438 Aviation Uses Site Preparation 1,624 Grading 7,200 Building Construction 72,148 Paving 2,736 Architectural Coating 348 Roadway Construction Grubbing/Land Clearing 80 Grading/Excavation 952 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 480 Paving 144 Roadway Construction Grubbing/Land Clearing 288 Grading/Excavation 1,848 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2,176 Paving 520 Total 173,178 Source: Appendix C. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-23 Climate Registry 2019). The total estimated diesel fuel consumption from construction equipment for development of the project would be 332,870 gallons. The estimated GHGs from on-road vehicles were back-calculated based on carbon content (i.e., kilograms of CO2 per gallon) in order to estimate fuel usage during project construction. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2019). Based on CalEEMod estimates, approximately 1,160 one-way haul trips would be required over the course of the construction period. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per trip is assumed to be approximately 20 miles, equating to 23,200 VMT. Based on the carbon content of diesel, hauling would consume approximately 3,998 gallons of petroleum. In addition to haul trucks, vendor trucks would travel to and from the project site to deliver materials. Based on CalEEMod estimates, approximately 336,672 one-way vendor truck trips would occur over the construction period. VMT per trip is assumed to be approximately 13 miles, equating to 4,376,736 VMT total (Appendix C). Based on the carbon content of diesel, vendor trucks would consume approximately 674,392 gallons of petroleum during project construction. Fuel would also be consumed by construction workers traveling to and from the project site throughout the construction period. The number of construction workers required would vary based on the construction phase and activity. Using CalEEMod estimates, construction would result in 865,088 one-way worker trips, and each trip would be 13 miles in length. As such, construction worker commute trips would result in 11,246,144 VMT. Based on the carbon content of gasoline, workers would consume approximately 362,308 gallons of petroleum during project construction. This estimate is conservative given that it does not account for carpooling or use of public transit by construction workers. In summary, the proposed project is conservatively anticipated to consume approximately 1,373,567 gallons of petroleum during the construction phase, which would last approximately 10 years (extending approximately from January 2019 through December 2028). By comparison, California’s consumption of petroleum is approximately 76 million gallons per day and approximately 28 billion gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2019b). Based on these assumptions, approximately 280 billion gallons of petroleum would be consumed in California over the course of the construction period. Construction of the proposed project would, therefore, equate to 0.0005% of the total amount of petroleum that would be used statewide during the course of the construction period. Although construction activities would consume petroleum-based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Further, the petroleum consumed related to project construction would be typical of 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-24 construction projects of similar types and sizes, and would not necessitate new petroleum resources beyond what is typically required for California. Operational Use During operations, the majority of fuel consumption resulting from the proposed project would involve the use of vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Traffic trips were estimated based on the land uses specified in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR, and by adjusting default weekday trip rates in CalEEMod to match those included in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (Appendix H) for the land use types. The same adjustment factors used for the weekday trip generation were applied to the default Saturday and Sunday trip rates in CalEEMod. Increased trip lengths for potential customers based on the rural location of the project, as well as the project specific vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for employees, are described in Chapter 3.13, Transportation, of this EIR. Non-work trip lengths were increased to account for potentially greater travel distance for deliveries. Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model outputs for traffic. Annual operational gasoline demand and diesel demand were quantified. Gas fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a function of VMT as a result of project operation. As shown in Appendix C (CalEEMod outputs), the annual VMT attributable to the proposed project is expected to be 39,193,242 (Appendix C). Total estimated gasoline demand during project operation is approximately 1,131,713 gallons per year, and total estimated diesel demand is approximately 297,758 gallons per year. By comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 28 billion gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2019b). The anticipated increase in consumption associated with 1 year of project operation is 0.005% of the statewide use. Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles visiting the project site is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. As discussed under Section 3.15.2, Relevant Plan, Policies, and Ordinances, numerous regulations are in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single package of standards. This approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and ZEVs in California (CARB 2013). Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 107% by 2020, and 18% by 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles in the Association of Bay Area Governments planning area, which includes the County (CARB 2018). As such, operation of the project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy. In addition, for the proposed project to meet the applicable CAP consistency checklist criteria, MM- 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-25 GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3 are proposed. MM-GHG-1 requires implementation of transit-oriented and alternative transportation development design features into the project to reduce the use of single-occupancy fossil-fueled vehicles and VMT. This measure addresses and reduces operational GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project (see Section 3.6 of this EIR for details). The project site is located and the proposed project was designed to take advantage of the airport and several nearby highways. By efficiently using County-owned land with access to multiple transportation modes, the project, despite lacking transit access, is locationally efficient. In addition, creating employment opportunities for the largely residential communities in the eastern part of the County would be beneficial in terms of transportation energy by shortening commute times (instead of going to job-rich areas such as the Bay Area). Given the restraints on residential development related to airport operations, industrial, commercial, and aviation uses at this location would not be a wasteful or inefficient use of energy resources. In summary, although the proposed project would cause an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy over time. Furthermore, MM-GHG-1 would require implementation of design features that would encourage electric vehicle and zero/low-emission vehicle use and promote ridesharing and commute trip-reduction strategies. Given these considerations, the petroleum consumption associated with the proposed project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.15-2. The project would not conflict with existing energy standards and regulations. (Less than Significant Impact) The proposed project would be subject to and would comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the proposed project under the CALGreen. As discussed for Impact 3.15-1, the project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the proposed project would have (a) at least 50% of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the County General Plan, including General Plan Policy 8-113, which requires new commercial and industrial projects exceeding 10,000 square feet of gross floor area to incorporate measures to reduce GHG emissions (Contra Costa County 2018a). County-owned buildings are 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-26 designed to meet a standard of LEED Silver or greater. Because the project would comply with and exceed the existing energy standards and regulations, a less than significant impact would result due to conflicts with energy standards and regulations. Impact 3.15-3. The project would not place a significant demand on local and regional energy supplies or require a substantial amount of additional capacity. (Less than Significant) Electricity As described in Section 3.15.1, Existing Conditions, electricity is supplied to the project site by PG&E. As of 2017, approximately 104,148 GWh of electricity was used in PG&E’s service area annually (CEC 2018d). Annual retail sales of electricity in PG&E’s service area are forecasted to be approximately 124,805 GWh in 2029 (CEC 2018a). Upon implementation of the proposed project, the amount of electricity used at the project site is anticipated to increase by 8,741,078 kilowatt hours per year (Appendix C). This increase represents 0.008% of PG&E’s existing demand and approximately 0.007% of PG&E’s total forecasted electricity sales in 2029 (near the time of project buildout). As such, under both existing and future conditions, the increase in electricity demand at the project site would be negligible relative to the electricity use in PG&E’s service area. Furthermore, the increase in electricity demand at the project site would be accommodated within the amount of electricity that PG&E is anticipated to provide in its service area in 2029. Within the County, annual non-residential electricity use is approximately 6,809 GWh per year, as reported by the state’s Energy Consumption Database for 2017 (CEC 2018f). The increase in electricity consumption associated with the proposed project represents approximately 0.1% of the County’s total annual demand for non-residential uses. As such, the increase in electricity usage in the County attributable to the proposed project would not constitute a substantial amount that would place a significant demand on local and regional energy supplies, or require a substantial amount of additional capacity. Natural Gas As described in Section 3.15.1, natural gas would be supplied to the project site by PG&E. As of 2017, approximately 4,743 million therms of natural gas were used in PG&E’s service area per year (CEC 2018h). Around the time of project buildout in 2029, natural gas demand is anticipated to be approximately 4,865 million therms per year in PG&E’s service area (CEC 2018i). The total capacity available is anticipated to be 44 million therms per day. This equates to 17 billion therms per year, which is well above both existing and future anticipated demand. Upon implementation of the proposed project, the amount of natural gas used at the project site per year is anticipated to increase by 10,463,756 kBTU relative to existing conditions. This amount 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-27 of natural gas is equivalent to 104,638 therms.3 The expected increase in use represents approximately 0.002% of PG&E’s existing 2017 demand and 0.002% of PG&E’s future 2029 demand. The increase in natural gas consumption attributable to the proposed project is approximately 0.01% of the County’s annual natural gas demand for non-residential uses. As such, the increase in natural gas usage in the County attributable to the proposed project would not constitute a substantial amount that would place a significant demand on local and regional energy supplies, or require a substantial amount of additional capacity. Petroleum The proposed project would increase the use of petroleum relative to existing conditions at the project site. During the construction phase, it is anticipated that approximately 1,373,567 gallons of petroleum would be used. This amount is approximately 0.0005% of the total amount of petroleum that would be used statewide during the course of the construction period. During operation, the increase in number of vehicles traveling to and from the project site would result in petroleum consumption of 1,429,471 gallons per year. This equates to 0.005% of yearly gasoline use throughout the state. As described in Section 3.15.1, the United States produces approximately 840 million gallons per year (EIA 2019b). The increase in petroleum use attributable to the proposed project would be negligible relative to petroleum production in the United States. Additionally, policies are in place at the state and federal levels to increase fuel efficiency over time. Increasing efficiency of vehicles over the lifetime of the project is also anticipated to result in incremental reductions in the project’s operational fuel use. For the reasons described above, the proposed project’s energy use falls well within local and regional energy supplies. The proposed project’s anticipated energy consumption would be minimal relative to both existing energy consumption and future consumption at both the local and regional scale. Further, as substantiated in the calculations above, the increase in electricity and natural gas usage attributable to the proposed project falls within anticipated increases in PG&E’s electricity and natural gas demands, and the proposed project would not create a significant demand on supplies or require substantial additional capacity to provide electricity or natural gas services. Regarding petroleum, fuel economy is expected to increase over time, and even without such reductions in future petroleum use, petroleum use associated with the proposed project would be negligible relative to current use and production. Therefore the proposed project would not create a significant demand on petroleum supplies or require substantial additional petroleum services capacity. Impacts would be less than significant. 3 One therm is equal to 100,000 BTU or 100 kBTU. 10,738,663 kBTU ÷ 100 = 107,387 therms 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-28 3.15.5 Mitigation Measures As discussed above, energy impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant. The project would comply with federal, state, and local policies and standards for conservation of energy. County GHG reduction policies, which also serve to reduce energy demand, would be ensured through implementation of MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2, and MM-GHG-3. No additional mitigation measures are required. 3.15.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant without implementation of additional mitigation measures. 3.15.7 Cumulative Impacts Impact 3.15-3 considers future demand by energy uses. Impacts 3.15-1 and 3.15-2 would not be affected by other projects, since the interaction with future development identified in the General Plan would not affect the efficiency of the project or consistency with applicable plans. 3.15.8 References Cited California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2018. 2018 California Gas Report. 2018. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/ adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. CARB. 2011. “Facts About The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” November 9, 2011. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/ advanced_clean_cars_eng.pdf. CARB. 2013. “Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493.” May 6, 2013. Accessed January 28, 2018. http://arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. CARB. 2014. “Truck and Bus Regulation, On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation.” August 29, 2014. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ msprog/onrdiesel/documents/FSRegSum.pdf. CARB. 2015. Clean Power Plan Compliance Discussion Paper. September 2015. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/powerplants/meetings/2015whitepaper.pdf. CARB 2018. SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. Adopted March 22, 2018. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-29 CEC (California Energy Commission). 2013. Integrated Energy Policy Report 2013. CEC-100- 2013-001-CMF. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2013publications/CEC-100-2013-001/CEC-100-2013-001-CMF.pdf. CEC. 2015. “2016 Building Efficiency Standards Adoption Hearing Presentation.” June 2015. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/ documents/2015-06-10_hearing/2015-06-10_Adoption_Hearing_Presentation.pdf#page=8. CEC. 2018a. California Energy Demand 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. CEC-200-2018-002- CMF. February 2018. CEC. 2018b. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. CEC. 2018c. Final 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. CEC-100-2017-001-CMF. February 2018. CEC. 2018d. “Electricity Consumption by Planning Area.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx. CEC. 2018e. “2017 Total System Electric Generation in Gigawatt Hours.” Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. CEC. 2018f. “Electricity Consumption by County: Contra Costa County, Nonresidential.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. CEC. 2018g. California Energy Demand 2018–2030 Revised Baseline Forecast – Mid Demand Case End-User Natural Gas Consumption by Sector (MM Therms). Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2017_energypolicy/documents/2018-02-21_business_meeting/ 2018-02-21_middemandcase_forecst.php. CEC. 2018h. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. CEC. 2018i. “Natural Gas Consumption by Planning Area.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx. CEC. 2018j. “Natural Gas Consumption by County: Contra Costa County.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. CEC. 2019. “California Natural Gas Data and Statistics.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-30 CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2016. Biennial RPS Program Update. January 1, 2016. The Climate Registry. 2019. The Climate Registry’s 2019 Default Emission Factors. May 2019. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Climate-Registry- 2019-Default-Emission-Factor-Document.pdf Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 8, Conservation Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30918/Ch8-Conservation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation and Circulation Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation-and- Circulation-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2015. Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 15, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2018a. General Plan Amendment No. 18-0004, Addition to the Text of the Conservation Element. December 4, 2018. http://64.166.146.245/docs/2018/ BOS/20181211_1156/35900_Attachment%201.pdf. Contra Costa County. 2018b. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. July 2018. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5b8ec26192756.pdf. EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2019a. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates – Table F19: Natural Gas Consumption Estimates, 2017.” Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/ fuel_use_ng.html&sid=US&sid=CA. EIA. 2019b. Table C2. Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy Sources in Physical Units, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_sum/html/ pdf/sum_use_tot.pdf. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Program Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard. Last updated September 28, 2015. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/program-overview-renewable- fuel-standard-program. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-31 EPA and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2010. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472. NHTSA-2009-0059. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf. EPA and NHTSA. 2012. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0799, NHTSA-2010-0131. PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric Company). 2017. 2017 Joint Annual Report to Shareholders. Accessed January 28, 2019. http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/ annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_pdf/2017/2017_Annual_Report.pdf. 3.15 – ENERGY CONSUMPTION Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 3.15-32 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-1 CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the alternatives evaluation in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as stated in Section 15126.6(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, is to ensure that the range of potential alternatives to the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) includes those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects identified by the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project is presented in this Draft EIR to provide the public and decision makers with a range of possible alternatives. The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, but need not consider every conceivable alternative. The CEQA Guidelines further state that “the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location [that] are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[b]). Therefore, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project (or to its location) that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The feasibility of an alternative may be determined based on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site accessibility and control (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]). Alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6([a]). Agency decision makers ultimately decide what is “actually feasible” (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981). Under CEQA, “feasible” is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (Sierra Club v. County of Napa [2004] 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1001; In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings [2008] 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166). Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-2 An EIR need not evaluate the environmental effects of alternatives in the same level of detail as the proposed project, but must include enough information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The alternatives discussion is intended to focus on alternatives to the proposed project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives (see Section 4.1.1, Project Objectives). The lead agency’s decision-making body, in this case the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, has the discretion to select a project alternative in lieu of the proposed project. If this were to occur, the County Board of Supervisors would need to ensure that the level of detail included in the alternatives analysis is adequate and that there would not be any new or significant impacts as a result of selecting the alternative. The required Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan would need to be prepared that identifies the alternative as the project selected for approval. It is anticipated that if one of the project alternatives is selected, the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would not change and would still be required; depending on the alternative selected, that alternative may require additional mitigation measures where impacts are more severe than the proposed project. This chapter identifies the project objectives, describes the project alternatives, and evaluates the comparative effects of the alternatives relative to the proposed project. As required under Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmentally superior alternative is identified and included at the end of this chapter. 4.1.1 Project Objectives Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a), an alternative should feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The project objectives are stated in Section 2.3, Project Objectives, and repeated below: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport- related land uses. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. • Provide a streamlined planning framework for development consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-3 4.1.2 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an EIR to identify and briefly discuss any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. Alternatives that would have the same or greater impacts as the proposed project, that would not meet most of the project objectives, or that were otherwise infeasible were dismissed from further consideration. This alternative considered but rejected is described below. Off-Site Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) states than an EIR should consider whether any of the significant effects of a proposed project would be avoided or substantially reduced by putting the project in another location. In addition, the lead agency must determine the feasibility of an off- site alternative. Where a project is consistent with an approved General Plan, consideration of an off-site alternative is not required, per Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 (Goleta II). The EIR “is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land-use policy” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 573). In approving a General Plan, the local agency has already identified and analyzed suitable alternative sites for particular types of development and has selected a feasible land use plan. “Informed and enlightened regional planning does not demand a project EIR dedicated to defining alternative sites without regard to feasibility. Such ad hoc reconsideration of basic planning policy is not only unnecessary, but would be in contravention of the legislative goal of long-term, comprehensive planning” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 572–573). There are two airport locations identified in the Contra Costa General Plan: Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. No other airport locations are considered. It is a basic objective of the proposed project to locate development on airport property that would economically benefit the airport and create economic self-sufficiency. The types of development envisioned at the project site would benefit from the proximity of the airport. Furthermore, the Contra Costa County General Plan prohibits industrial and commercial development adjacent to airports to prevent future land conflicts from restricting the operations of the airport (Contra Costa County 2005a). Therefore, off-site development would not meet a basic project objective. Furthermore, additional development at Buchanan Field Airport would not meet the project objectives. Buchanan Field Airport is located adjacent to an urban area, the City of Concord, and has a higher level of development on and around the airport. This development supports Buchanan Field Airport economically. Additional development there would only widen the disparity between the two airports in terms of supportive development. 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-4 4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This section provides a description of the alternatives to the proposed proje ct analyzed in this Draft Final EIR, and evaluates how specific impacts differ in severity from those associated with the proposed project. The alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in this Draft Final EIR are as follows: Alternative 1: No Project/Aviation Only Alternative 2: Aviation Expansion Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity 4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Aviation Only Basis for Consideration An EIR alternatives analysis must include the “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). The no project discussion follows one of two lines of analysis: (1) where the project includes a change to a land use plan or policy (including zoning), what kind of development would reasonably be expected to occur under existing plans and considering available infrastructure and services, or (2) if no development would occur (the “no build” alternative), what would the effects be of the project site remaining in its existing state compared to the circumstances if the proposed project were approved. The approved Byron Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (Appendix D to the Airport Master Plan) identify additional aviation development to support the anticipated growth in airport operations. These include aircraft storage, cargo facilities, maintenance and repair, corporate hangars and fixed-base operators, and expanded pilot and passenger facilities (Contra Costa County 2005b, 2016). Aviation uses are consistent with the existing P-1 zoning and the ALUCP for Byron Airport, and were evaluated in the 1985 EIR prepared for the siting and development of Byron Airport. Therefore, some level of development should be considered in the “no project” scenario, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. However, existing infrastructure is inadequate to serve even the build-out of the current master planned aviation uses. It is, therefore, assumed that aircraft storage could accommodate the additional 62 based aircraft. Supporting facilities would be limited to 20,000 to 40,000 square feet—the estimated amount of development that could be supported by the septic system based on existing use and capacity (Mead & Hunt 2013). 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-5 Description It is assumed that based aircraft and operations would increase, consistent with the Airport Master Plan. This alternative assumes that 167 aircraft would be based at the airport within 10 years (compared to the current estimate of 105). Airport storage, including hangars and tie-downs, would be constructed to accommodate additional aircraft. New structures would be limited to 20,000 to 40,000 square feet due to limitations in water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. Development would occur in the aviation area, adjacent to existing airport facilities, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. No development would occur in the non-aviation area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects The No Project/Aviation Only Alternative would avoid all significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project (see Table 4-1). This alternative would include some construction activities and additional facilities, so certain construction-related impacts would be potentially significant, but these would be mitigated through implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified for that project. These measures would be for impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, and hydrology. Relationship to Proposed Project Objectives The No Project/Aviation Only Alternative would, for the most part, achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, as follows: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. This alternative would not achieve the objectives related to economic development or financial self-sufficiency. 4.2.2 Alternative 2: Aviation Expansion Basis for Consideration The Aviation Expansion Alternative is similar to the No Project/Aviation Only Alternative (see above), but assumes that additional infrastructure would be constructed for full build-out of the aviation area. This alternative would reduce significant impacts related to transportation and related health risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Since traffic generation from new development east of the main runway (including vendors, employees, and visitors) would not occur, this alternative is expected to substantially reduce those impacts. 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-6 Description It is assumed that based aircraft and operations would increase consistent with the Airport Master Plan. A total of 11.8 acres would be dedicated to future airport storage (including hangars and tie- downs). Up to 154,000 square feet of aviation-related buildings would be constructed within an area of 11.8 acres. No development would occur in the airport-related area east of the main runway. Acquisition of the residence in the northeast corner of the project site would not occur. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects Since no development would occur east of the main runway, the three houses near the airport would not be affected, avoiding impacts related to health risk and noise (due to increased traffic). Transportation impacts would be substantially reduced (because of reduced number of truck traffic, vendors, employees, and visitors). The potentially significant (but mitigatable) aesthetics impact of large structures east of the airport would also be avoided. Associated greenhouse gas emissions would also be substantially reduced. Construction impacts related to expansion of the aviation uses, including impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, and public utilities, would still occur, but would be mitigated by feasible mitigation measures, as described throughout this EIR. Relationship to Proposed Project Objectives The Aviation Expansion Alternative would achieve the aviation-related objectives of the project, as follows: • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. This alternative would not achieve the objectives related to economic development or financial self-sufficiency. 4.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Basis for Consideration The Reduced Intensity Alternative is based on the initial development scenario for the proposed project. This scenario did not include an update of the ALUCP, so the intensity of proposed development was constrained. Since several of the significant project impacts are related to the intensity of development, particularly in proximity to residential uses east of the airport, this reduced- intensity alternative provides a useful comparison. This alternative would use the same development footprint as the proposed project, but would not include acquisition of the 11.7-acre parcel. Due to the 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-7 reduced amount of acreage, potential office and commercial uses would be eliminated from the development scenario, and that acreage would be added to the warehousing uses. Description Based aircraft and operations would increase consistent with the Airport Master Plan because aviation expansion would still occur on the 23.5 acres designated for aviation uses. The development footprint would be similar to the proposed project, but the intensity would be reduced. The floor-to-area ratio of logistics/warehouse/distribution would be reduced to 0.25 (from 0.30 for the proposed project). Office and commercial development would be eliminated, and the potential acreage for those uses would be used for logistics/warehouse/distribution. The 11.7-acre parcel adjacent to the airport-related development would not be acquired. The development scenario is shown in Table 4-1, Reduced Intensity Alternative. Table 4-1 Reduced Intensity Alternative Available Acres FAR Building Area (KSF) Employees and Visitors (per KSF) Employees and Visitors Persons per Acre Non-Aviation Uses 46.6 — — — — — Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution 21.0 0.25 229 1.0 229 11 Light Industry/Business Park 14.0 0.35 213 1.4 298 21 Total Non-Aviation Use 35.6 — 484 — 1,213 — Aviation Uses 23.5 — — — — — Aircraft Storage 11.8 0.25 128 0.3 32 3 Aviation 11.8 0.3 154 0.5 77 7 Total Aviation Use 23.5 — 282 — 109 — TOTAL 58 — 723 — 636 — FAR = floor-to-area ratio; KSF = thousand square feet Total building area would be reduced to 723,000 square feet, as opposed to the proposed project amount of 941,000 square feet. Total employees and visitors would not exceed 636 at any given time, as opposed to 1,528 for the proposed project. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects Transportation impacts would be reduced by eliminating commercial and office uses. However, truck traffic would be similar to the proposed project, since this alternative could result in 484,000 square feet of warehouse/light industrial uses compared to 487,000 for the proposed project. Traffic impacts would still likely be significant but reduced, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of mitigation required. Associated greenhouse gas emissions would also be reduced, but likely not to a 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-8 less-than-significant level. Since warehousing and light industrial uses would still be constructed east of the airport, impacts related to health risk would still potentially occur, but could be mitigated. The potentially significant (but mitigatable) aesthetics impact of large structures east of the airport would also be avoided, since warehousing would be less dense and farther from existing homes. Construction impacts related to expansion of the aviation uses, including impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, and public utilities, would still occur, but would be mitigated by feasible mitigation measures described throughout this EIR. Relationship to Proposed Project Objectives The Reduced Intensity Alternative would achieve the avi ation-related objectives of the project , as follows : • Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. • Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. This alternative would not fully achieve the economic objectives: • Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport- related land uses. • Provide a streamlined planning framework for development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. 4.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 4-2, Environmental Comparison of Alternatives, shows the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project prior to implementation of mitigation measures compared to the potential effects of the project alternatives. If a project alternative would have new or substantially greater impacts than the proposed project, this is also noted in the table. Table 4-2 Environmental Comparison of Alternatives Impact Proposed Project Alt 1: No Project/ Aviation Only Alt 2: Aviation Expansion Alt 3: Reduced Intensity Aesthetics Impact 3.1-2. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. LSM LS LS LS 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-9 Table 4-2 Environmental Comparison of Alternatives Impact Proposed Project Alt 1: No Project/ Aviation Only Alt 2: Aviation Expansion Alt 3: Reduced Intensity Air Quality Impact 3.2-4. The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. LSM LS LS LSM Biological Resources Impact 3.3-1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.3-2. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.3-3. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologic interruption, or other means. LSM LS LS LSM Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LSM LS LS LSM Impact 3.4-2. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.4-3. The project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.4-4. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. LSM LSM LSM LSM Geology and Soils Impact 3.5-4. The project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. LSM LSM LSM LSM 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-10 Table 4-2 Environmental Comparison of Alternatives Impact Proposed Project Alt 1: No Project/ Aviation Only Alt 2: Aviation Expansion Alt 3: Reduced Intensity Impact 3.5-5. The project may have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.4-6. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. LSM LSM LSM LSM Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 3.6-1. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. S LS LS S– Impact 3.6-2. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. S LS LS S– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7-1. The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. LSM LSM LSM LSM Impact 3.7-2. The project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. LSM LSM– LSM– LSM Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8-3. 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (c)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows. LSM LSM LSM LSM 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-11 Table 4-2 Environmental Comparison of Alternatives Impact Proposed Project Alt 1: No Project/ Aviation Only Alt 2: Aviation Expansion Alt 3: Reduced Intensity Land Use and Planning 3.9-2. The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LS1 LS S S Noise Impact 3.10-1. The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. S LS LS S– Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.13-1. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system. S LS LS S– Impact 3.13-4. The project would potentially increase hazards due to an incompatible on the roadway system. LSM LS LS LSM Public Utilities Impact 3.14-1. The project would result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. LSM LS LSM– LSM LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; S = significant – indicates less impact relative to the proposed project. 1 The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and ALUCP update to allow higher levels of development. With the proposed amendments/update, the project would not conflict with applicable plans. However, a project alternative that does not include these plan updates may be found to conflict with existing plans and policies for protection of the environment, and could, therefore, result in a significant impact. 4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative (Section 15126.6 [e][2]). If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. As shown in Table 4-2, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, so the Aviation Expansion Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative per CEQA. The lead agency must still consider the ability of the environmentally superior alternative to achieve the project objectives. 4 – ALTERNATIVES Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 4-12 4.5 REFERENCES CITED Contra Costa County. 2005a. Contra Costa County General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use Element. January 18, 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/30913/Ch3-Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Contra Costa County. 2005b. Byron Airport Master Plan. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Concord, California. Prepared by Leigh Fisher Associates. June 2005. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3958/Byron-Airport-Master-Plan. Contra Costa County. 2016. Byron Airport Master Plan, Appendix D, Airport Layout Plan. June 2016. Accessed September 2019. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/48449/Byron-Airport-Layout-Plan-Update-2016. Mead & Hunt. 2013. Infrastructure Study for the Byron Airport. Prepared by Mead & Hunt for the County of Contra Costa. August 2013. Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 5-1 CHAPTER 5 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) briefly describe potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The following environmental issues are not considered potentially significant for the reasons discussed. 5.1.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources The following environmental issues to agricultural and forestry resources, per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, were considered but were determined to have no potential for significant effects related to the proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) for the reasons stated below. a) Would the project 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? Per the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site, including the airport property and the acquisition parcel, are classified as grazing land, farmland of local importance, and urban (FMMP 2016). Therefore, there is are no lands that would be affected by the project that meet the definition of important farmland under CEQA. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The airport property is zoned P-1, Planned Development (Contra Costa County 2005). The P-1 zone does allow for agricultural uses, but is not an exclusive agricultural zoning under the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, no active farming operations are present on the airport property. The acquisition parcel is zoned A-3, Heavy Agriculture. However, land use of the parcel is a single-family home and is not actively used for agriculture. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. There are two contracts, No. 21-73 and No. 4-78, east of Byron Airport. These contracted lands would not be affected by project construction or operation. 5 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 5-2 c) Would the project 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))? There are no timberland zoning districts on or adjacent to the project site, and there are no forest land resources on the project site. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? The project site and project vicinity do not contain forest lands. e) Would the project 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? The proposed project is the expansion of aviation uses and the development of airport-related commercial and industrial land uses. The project would not introduce residences or other sensitive land uses that could create conflicts with agricultural operations. Agriculture is generally considered a compatible use with a public-use airport. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental impacts of the proposed project, including significant and unavoidable impacts, are discussed in the technical sections contained in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting and Impacts, of this EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts are also listed below: Impact 3.2-1. The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impact 3.2-2. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impact 3.6-1. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impact 3.6-2. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, poli cy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 5 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 5-3 Impact 3.10-1. The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact 3.13-1. The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental change that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible changes if: • The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area); • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[c]); • The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Implementation of the proposed project would result in the long-term commitment of resources of the project site to the operation of Byron Airport and supportive development. The location of Byron Airport was selected to minimize land use impacts and to provide on-site mitigation for biological resources affected by development of the airport. Ongoing resource use by the project would include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable state and local building codes, as well as mitigation measures described in the EIR, would ensure that resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible. Energy usage and conservation related to the project are discussed in Section 3.15, Energy Consumption. The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage caused by environmental accidents associated with a project. Although the project would result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of minor amounts of hazardous materials during 5 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 5-4 project construction and operation, as described Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all such activities would comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws related to the use, storage, and transport hazardous materials, which would significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage. The project itself does not propose any uniquely hazardous uses that would require any special handling or storage. 5.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS As required by Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The proposed project would involve activities at Byron Airport consistent with the Airport Master Plan, which would foster planned economic growth. Aviation uses would be expanded to accommodate the growth in airport operations and planned growth consistent with Federal Aviation Administration forecasts. Development of airport-related commercial and industrial uses would support economic self-sufficiency at the airport while promoting a jobs/housing balance in eastern Contra Costa County. The environmental effects of economic growth (project activities) are discussed within this EIR. The potential for population growth or housing construction is discussed in Section 3.11, Population, Housing, and Growth, which concludes that the proposed project would not result in unplanned population or housing growth. 5.5 REFERENCES CITED Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County Zoning Map. Accessed September 2019. https://gis.cccounty.us/Html5//index.html?viewer=CCMAP. FMMP (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program). 2016. Contra Costa County Important Farmland. California Department of Conservation. August 2016. Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 6-1 CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 6.1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Daniel Barrios, Senior Planner Beth Lee, Assistant Director of Airports 6.2 DUDEK Brian Grattidge, Project Manager Kim Asbury, Environmental Analyst Christopher Barnobi, INCE Bd. Cert., Noise Laura Burris, Biological Resources Dylan Duverge, PG, Hydrology and Water Quality Tyler Friesen, GIS Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA, Cultural Resources Daniel Hoffman, Environmental Analyst Shilpa Iyer, Environmental Analyst Matt Morales, Air Quality, GHG Dennis Pascua, Transportation Corinne Price, Technical Editor Sabita Tewani, AICP, Transportation 6.3 SUBCONSULTANTS TJKM, Transportation GHD, Transportation Mead & Hunt, Airport Land Use Planning 6 – LIST OF PREPARERS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 6-2 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-1 CHAPTER 7 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and responses address comments on significant environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, Contra Costa County, as the lead agency, evaluated comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017092059) for the Byron Airport Development Program. Section 15088 requires that the lead agency evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons and agencies that reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare a written response addressing the comments received. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day public review period that began on July 1, 2021, and ended on August 30, 2021. The County received four (4) comment letters on the Draft EIR, listed in Table 7-1. Each letter is identified by a letter and a number. Within each letter, each individual comment regarding the Draft EIR is numbered. For example, the first comment in the first public agency comment letter would be identified as comment P1-1. Responses to each comment, identified by number, are included in this chapter. Table 7-1. Comments Received on the Draft EIR Letter Number Commenter Date Received Page No. Public Agencies P1 Department of Conservation August 2, 2021 7-2 P2 Contra Costa Water District August 27, 2021 7-10 P3 Delta Stewardship Council August 30, 2021 7-14 Tribal Governments T1 Wilton Rancheria July 14, 2021 7-20 Individuals and Organizations None received 08/02/2021 County: Contra Costa - Contra Costa County Daniel Barrios 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94533, USA Daniel.Barrios@dcdcccounty.us Construction Site Well Review (CSWR) ID: 1012275 Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001031023, 001011013, 001011017, 001011033, 001011037 Property Owner(s): Keith Freitas Project Location Address: 5698 Armstrong Road Byron, California 94514 Project Title: Byron Airport Development Program Public Resources Code (PRC) § 3208.1 establishes well reabandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil, gas, and geothermal wells. The California Geologic Energy Mangagement Division (CalGEM) has received and reviewed the above referenced project dated 8/2/2021. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, the Division provides the following well evaluation. The project is located in Contra Costa County, within the boundaries of the following fields: Any Field Our records indicate there are 3 known oil or gas wells located within the project boundary as identified in the application. Page 1 Letter P1 1 2 • Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 3 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 The Division categorically advices against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure. There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. The Division acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current Division requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantees that such abandonments will not leak. The Division advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to the Division in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. The Division expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately. Failure to plug and reabandon the well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform reabandonment well work, pursuant to PRC § 3208.1, and 3224. PRC § 3208.1 give the Division the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local Page 2 2 cont. 3 4 5 permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for reabandonment as: 1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment. 2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be reabandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment. 3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the reabandonment. No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from the Division. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. The Division also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR §1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from the Division is required before work can start. The Division makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer: 1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements Page 3 6 7 8 near oil or gas wells, the Division recommends that information regarding the above identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property. 2. The Division recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development. As indicated in PRC § 3106, the Division has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to the Division's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC §§ 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC §§ 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within the Division's jurisdictional authority. The Division does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues. If during development activities, any wells are encountered that were not part of this review, the property owner is expected to immediately notify the Division's construction site well review engineer in the Northern district office, and file for Division review an amended site plan with well casing diagrams. The District office will send a follow-up well evaluation letter to the property owner and local permitting agency. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (661) 334-3665 or via email at Rohit.Sharma@conservation.ca.gov. Sincerely, Rohit Sharma Acting Northern District Deputy cc: Colin Lawson - Submitter cc: Daniel Barrios - Plan Checker cc: Brian Grattidge - Project Manager cc: Keith Freitas - Property Owner Page 4 8 cont. 9 10 Wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law & Not Projected to be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded The wells listed below are not abandoned to current Division requirements as prescribed by law, and based upon information provided, are projected to be built over or have future access impeded. API Well Designation Operator Well Evaluations 0401300237 Hannum Trust 1 Rinde Oil Co.Insufficient hydrocarbon zone plug. Insufficient surface plug. 0401300238 Hannum Trust 2 Rinde Oil Co.Insufficient surface plug. 0401300239 ROCO-Hannum Trust 2 Santa Fe Minerals Insufficient hydrocarbon zone plug. Insufficient casing shoe plug. Insufficient base of fresh water plug. Insufficient surface plug. Page 5 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-7 LETTER P1 COMMENTER: California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division DATE: August 2, 2021 Response P1-1 The comment is acknowledged. Response P1-2 The three wells described in the attachment to the comment letter are designated as Hannum Trust 1, Hannum Trust 2, and ROCO-Hannum Trust 2. The wells are located in the Habitat Management lands within the Airport property and, as acknowledged in the comment letter, would not be affected by the proposed project. This information has been added to Section 3.7.1, Existing Conditions, of the Hazards chapter of the Final EIR. Response P1-3 The wells are located in the Habitat Management lands within the Airport property. No development will occur over the wells, nor will access be impeded in any way as a result of this project. Response P1-4 The comment is acknowledged. Response P1-5 As discussed in Section 3.7, there are three abandoned oil and gas wells located within the Airport Boundary, near Byron Hot Springs Road. These wells are located within the proposed Habitat Management Area; development is not anticipated or proposed within this area. The closest well to a proposed development area is approximately 0.4 miles to the southeast; the other two wells are approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the development area. While not anticipated, should future construction or airport development disturb or otherwise impact these wells, reabandonment would be required in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 3208.1. As defined in PRC 3208.1, either the property owner or the party building over or otherwise disturbing the integrity of the abandoned well would be responsible for the reabandonment. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations would avoid any potentially significant impacts related to existing oil and gas wells. This information has been added to the analysis in Impact 3.7-2 of the Final EIR. 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-8 Response P1-6 See response to comment P1-5. The County acknowledges that responsibility for reabandonment is defined per PRC Section 3208.1. Response P1-7 The comment is acknowledged. See also responses to comments P1-3 and P1-5. Response P1-8 The subject property is owned by Contra Costa County for use as a public airport and is under a mitigation easement; therefore, property transfer to another owner is not foreseeable. Discovery and proper treatment of contaminated soil is addressed in the EIR by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Response P1-9 The comment is acknowledged. Response P1-10 The comment is acknowledged. All proper notifications will be made by the County to the Division regarding abandonment, or discovery, of oil, gas, or geothermal wells. August 27, 2021 Daniel Barrios Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Byron Airport Development Program, County File Numbers: GP12-0003, DP14-3008, State Clearinghouse Number: 2017092059 Mr. Barrios, The Contra Costa Water District (District) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Byron Airport Development Program EIR (EIR) dated June 2021. The project is located in southeastern Contra Costa County, south of Byron Hot Springs, west of the Clifton Court Forebay, north of the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plan and east of Armstrong Road. The District is submitting comments in relation to the Phase 2 Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (Phase 2 Expansion), a project of state-wide importance. The Phase 2 Expansion is a collaborative regional project that will improve Bay Area water supply reliability and water quality while protecting Delta fisheries. The Phase 2 Expansion will also provide additional Delta ecosystem benefits as well as be able to deliver water to wildlife refuges through its regional intertie (Transfer-Bethany Pipeline). The EIR states on page 3-2, Cumulative Context, that “There are no currently proposed projects in the immediate project vicinity” and for this reason the County relied on the project method from adopted plans for its cumulative effect’s analysis. However, the District is in the permitting phase of the Phase 2 Expansion which will increase the capacity of the existing 160-thousand acre foot (TAF) Los Vaqueros Reservoir to 275 TAF and, among other conveyance facilities, will construct the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, an approximately 8.0 mile pipeline from the existing Transfer Facility, traversing the Byron Airport Property in the vicinity of Armstrong Road, and continuing south to terminate at the California Aqueduct. Accordingly, the District request that the Phase 2 Expansion, specifically the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, be included in the cumulative context and effects analysis of the EIR (i.e., construction, operation and maintenance effects of the Transfer- Bethany Pipeline in the vicinity of the Byron Airport for resources areas where a cumulative condition is reasonably foreseeable). On background, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, California – Great Basin Region (Reclamation) as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the District as the lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) previously released a joint Draft EIS/EIR in Letter P2 1 2 Daniel Barrios Byron Airport Development Program, County File Numbers: GP12-0003, DP14-3008, State Clearinghouse Number: 2017092059 August 27, 2021 Page 2 February 2009. The Draft EIS/EIR included analysis of four action alternatives: two that include a reservoir expansion to 275 TAF and a Transfer-Bethany Pipeline that traversed along Armstrong Road. Multiple County departments including the Department of Conservation and Development, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Public Works Department provided comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. The Final EIS/EIR (certified March 31, 2010), was later modified by the August 2013 EIR Addendum #1 (together, the Final EIS/EIR). The Final EIS/EIR analyzed, among other alternatives, a Timing Variant under which Los Vaqueros Reservoir would be expanded first to 160 TAF (Phase 1 Expansion) and later to 275 TAF (Phase 2 Expansion). Ultimately, the Phase 1 Expansion, which did not include the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, was approved and completed in 2012. On June 29, 2017, Reclamation and the District published the Draft Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR which disclosed that the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline would start at the same place on the north end and travel along the same alignment as proposed in the Final EIS/EIR for the first 7.1 miles to an area south of the Byron Airport. Beyond the 7.1-mile marker, the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline was modified, consistent with the Reclamation 2016 Value Planning Study, to fully avoid tunneling and terminate at the California Aqueduct rather than the Bethany Reservoir. The County Flood Control and Water Conservation District commented on the document. On March 8, 2018, in response to concern raised about the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, the District and Reclamation held a meeting with the Department of Conservation and Development, Department of Public Works and Airports division. On February 28, 2020, Reclamation and the District published the Final Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR. On May 13, 2020, the Final Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR was certified and the Phase 2 Expansion, including the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, was adopted by the District’ Board (Resolution-No-20-006-PDF (ccwater.com). Reclamation plans to execute it’s Record of Decision in early 2022. All environmental documents related to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project are available here: Environmental Documents | Contra Costa Water District, CA (ccwater.com). Thank you for your consideration of District comments to include the Phase 2 Expansion in the cumulative context and effects analysis. The District looks forward to continued coordination with the various department at the County on the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline. If you have any questions about this letter or the Phase 2 Expansion please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Jennifer Johnson Principal Planner 3 4 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-11 LETTER P2 COMMENTER: Contra Costa Water District DATE: August 27, 2021 Response P2-1 The comment is acknowledged. Response P2-2 The Phase 2 Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion, specifically the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, has been added to Section 3.0.2, Cumulative Setting, of the Final EIR. The Transfer-Bethany Pipeline involves the construction of an approximately 8-mile pipeline that connects the Los Vaqueros Transfer Facility (located between Camino Diablo and Vasco Road, northeast of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir) to the California Aqueduct (north of Bethany Reservoir). The proposed alignment is identified in the 2020 Final Supplement to the EIS/EIR for the Los Vaqueros Expansion Project. Th e proposed alignment would parallel Vasco Road and follow Armstrong Road along the west edge of Byron Airport, past the southerly property line of the Airport, before turning east and then south to connect to the California Aqueduct. While the alignment is adjacent to, and may encroach on, Airport property, the proposed alignment is not located near the proposed development area on Byron Airport, and would not overlap or conflict with any offsite improvements included in the proposed project. Construction impacts for the proposed Transfer- Bethany Pipeline, as discussed in the Los Vaqueros Expansion Project EIS/EIR, would be similar to those associated with construction of the proposed project, including short-term air emissions, potential disturbance of biological resources, soil erosion, hazardous materials, water quality impacts, and temporary disruptions of utilities or traffic. The construction impacts of the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline and the proposed project would not occur within the same project site (although, as discussed below, would occur within the same cumulative setting) and construction schedules are unlikely to substantially overlap (the pipeline is scheduled to be constructed in 2022 or 2023, while the Airport Development Program would be developed over several years in response to market demand and growth in aviation traffic). The Los Vaqueros Expansion Project EIS/EIR did not find that construction of the pipeline would contribute to a cumulative impact. While the Byron Airport Development Program Draft EIR did not identify the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, it does assume a certain amount of regional growth, and considered the cumulative effects of such growth. Based on the above factors, the construction of the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline would not result in a new, or a substantial increase in a previously identified, cumulative impact. Response P2-3 The comment is acknowledged. See also response to comment P2-2. 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-12 Response P2-4 The comment is acknowledged. See also response to comment P2-2. 1 715 P Street, 15-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.5511 DELTACOUNCIL.CA.GOV CHAIR Susan Tatayon MEMBERS Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Maria Mehranian Daniel Zingale Don Nottoli Christy Smith Virginia Madueño EXECUTIVE OFFICER Jessica R. Pearson August 30, 2021 Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios 30 Muir Road Martinez, Ca 94553 Delivered via email: Daniel.Barrios@dcd.cccounty.us RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Byron Airport Development Program, SCH# 2017092059 Dear Daniel Barrios: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Byron Airport Development Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). The Delta Stewardship Council (Council) recognizes the objectives of the Byron Airport Development Program (project), as described in the Draft EIR: Contra Costa County intends to amend its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan), and Planned Unit District zoning to substantially broaden the range of uses allowed “by-right” on airport property. Of interest to the Council are areas located outside of the 2006 voter-approved urban limit line, including portions of the new safety/compatibility zones, specifically, B1 and B3 (new Safety Zone 2), and B2 (new Safety Zone 3). The Council is an independent state agency established by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, codified in Division 35 of the California Water Letter P3 1 Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 2 Code, sections 85000-85350 (Delta Reform Act). The Delta Reform Act charges the Council with furthering California’s coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) ecosystem. (Water Code, § 85054.) The Delta Reform Act further states that the coequal goals are to be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place. The Council is charged with furthering California’s coequal goals for the Delta through the adoption and implementation of the Delta Plan. (Wat. Code, § 85300.) Pursuant to the Delta Reform Act, the Council has adopted the Delta Plan, a comprehensive long-term management plan for the Delta and Suisun Marsh that furthers the coequal goals. The Delta Plan contains regulatory policies, which are set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, sections 5001-5015. A state or local agency that proposes to carry out, approve, or fund a qualifying action in whole or in part in the Delta, called a "covered action," is required to prepare a written certification of consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with the Delta Plan and submit that certification to the Council prior to implementation of the covered action. (Wat. Code, § 85225.) Water Code section 85057.5, subdivision (a), defines a covered action as a plan, program, or project as defined pursuant to Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code that meets all the following conditions: 1. Will occur in whole or in part within the boundaries of the legal Delta (Water Code, §12220) or Suisun Marsh (Pub. Resources Code, § 29101). The approximate boundaries of these areas are publicly available on the Open Data Portal at https://data.ca.gov/dataset/legal-delta-boundary and https://data.ca.gov/dataset/suisun-marsh-boundary. The eastern portion of Byron Airport is located within the Delta. 2. Will be carried out, approved, or funded by the State or a local public agency. Contra Costa County is the local public agency that will approve and carry out the project. 3. Will have a significant impact on the achievement of one or both of the coequal goals or the implementation of a government-sponsored flood control program to reduce risks to people, property, and State interests in 2 3 Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 3 the Delta. The project would have a significant impact on the achievement of the coequal goal to protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem. 4. Is covered by one or more of the regulatory policies contained in the Delta Plan (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, §§ 5003-5015). Delta Plan regulatory policies that may apply to the project are discussed below. The State or local agency approving, funding, or carrying out the project must determine if the project is a covered action and, if so, submit a Certification of Consistency to the Council prior to project implementation. (Wat. Code, § 85225; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5001(j)(3).) COMMENTS REGARDING DELTA PLAN POLICIES AND POTENTIAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION The following section describes the Delta Plan regulatory policies that may apply to the proposed project based on the available information in the Draft EIR. This information is offered to assist DCD to prepare environmental documents that could be used to support a future Certification of Consistency for the project. This information may also assist DCD to describe the relationship between the project and the Delta Plan in the Final EIR. General Policy 1: Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan Delta Plan Policy G P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002) specifies what must be addressed in a Certification of Consistency for a covered action. The following is a subset of policy requirements which a project shall fulfill to be considered consistent with the Delta Plan: Mitigation Measures Delta Plan Policy G P1(b)(2) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002(b)(2)) requires covered actions not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must include all applicable feasible mitigation measures adopted and incorporated into the Delta Plan as amended April 26, 2018 (unless the measures are within the exclusive jurisdiction of an agency other than the agency that files the Certification of Consistency), or substitute mitigation measures that the agency finds are equally or more effective. These 3 cont. 4 Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 4 mitigation measures are identified in Delta Plan Appendix O and are available at: https://deltacouncil.ca.gov/pdf/delta-plan/2018-appendix-o- mitigation-monitoring-and-reporting-program.pdf. The Draft EIR proposes project mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and minerals; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and transportation and traffic. The mitigation measures adopted in the Final EIR must be equally or more effective than applicable feasible Delta Plan mitigation measures. In a future Certification of Consistency for the project, DCD should document how the adopted mitigation measures are equally or more effective than the applicable mitigation measures contained in Delta Plan Appendix O. Best Available Science Delta Plan Policy G P1(b)(3) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002(b)(3)) states that actions subject to Delta Plan regulations must document use of best available science as relevant to the purpose and nature of the project. The Delta Plan defines best available science as “the best scientific information and data for informing management and policy decisions.” (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 23, § 5001 (f).) Best available science is also required to be consistent with the guidelines and criteria in Appendix 1A of the Delta Plan (https://deltacouncil.ca.gov/pdf/delta-plan/2015-appendix-1a.pdf). Delta as Place Policy 1: Locate New Urban Development Wisely Delta Plan Policy DP P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010) places certain limits on new urban development within the Delta. New residential, commercial, or industrial development must be limited to areas that city or county general plans designate for such development as of the date of the Delta Plan’s adoption (May 16, 2013). In Contra Costa County, new residential, commercial, and industrial development within the Delta must be limited to areas within the 2006 voter-approved urban limit line (ULL) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010(a)(2)). This policy is intended to strengthen existing Delta communities while protecting farmland and open space, providing land for ecosystem restoration needs, and reducing flood risk. 4 cont. Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 5 According to the Draft EIR, the General Plan designations for the Byron Airport property are Public/Semi-Public (PS) and Open Space (OS) (Draft EIR, p. 2-6). Although most of the Byron Airport is located within the ULL, the portion of the Airport designated as Open Space is outside the ULL. This area is subject to Delta Plan Policy DP P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010). Although the Draft EIR states that the General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change, ALUCP Policy 5-77 would be amended to reflect the new compatibility zone (Zone B- 1 would become Safety Zone 2) designations and additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP for Byron Airport (Draft EIR p. 2-6). The project proposes acquisition of an 11.7-acre property on Armstrong Road that is currently designated for Agricultural use and update the general plan designation to PS (Draft EIR, p. 2-6). This proposed acquisition is located within the ULL, and is therefore not subject to DP P1. Based on review of the Draft EIR, the locations of the project site and the ULL, and the existing and proposed General Plan designations, the project may be consistent with DP P1, although DCD must identify this in a Certification of Consistency for the project. DCD should revise the Final EIR to identify DP P1 requirements in the regulatory setting of the Land Use and Planning section. CLOSING COMMENTS The Council will continue to track the Byron Airport Development Program’s progress and invites DCD to engage in early consultation as future program updates are considered, in order to discuss project features and mitigation measures that would promote consistency with the Delta Plan. More information on covered actions, early consultation, and the certification process can be found on the Council website, https://coveredactions.deltacouncil.ca.gov. Please contact Avery.Livengood@deltacouncil.ca.gov, Environmental Program Manager, with any questions. 4 cont. Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 6 Sincerely, Jeff Henderson, AICP Deputy Executive Officer Delta Stewardship Council 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-19 LETTER P3 COMMENTER: Delta Stewardship Council DATE: August 30, 2021 Response P3-1 The proposed project would update the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which currently is not consistent with the recommendations of the most recent California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, nor with similar policies applicable to the County’s other public airport, Buchanan Field. The amendments to the General Plan and Planned Unit District zoning would allow for a greater variety of land uses on airport property that are consistent with the updated ALUCP. It should be noted that changes to the safety/compatibility zones outside of the airport property, and therefore outside of the ULL, would not allow for additional land uses not otherwise allowed by the existing agricultural zoning. Response P3-2 The proposed project is a County-initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA), Development Plan Modification (DPM), Rezone, and ALUCP Amendment for the Byron Airport to expand the range of uses allowed on the airport property. The proposed GPA includes new policies that update and clarify the range of land uses and activities allowed at Byron Airport, similar to those already adopted for the County’s other general aviation airport, Buchanan Field in Concord, as well as a redesignation of an 11.7-acre parcel from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS). The current Development Plan for the airport would be modified to permit all of the new uses either by-right or with approval of a land use (conditional) permit. The DPM would also establish certain development standards, such as maximum building heights, maximum lot coverage, landscaping requirements, etc. The rezone is requested for the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County and rezoned from Agriculture (A-3) to P-1 to be part of the Byron Airport Development Program. The ALUCP would be updated with new policies and maps specific to Byron Airport. The updated policies and maps would reflect the 2017 Airport Layout Plan for Byron Airport, the 2005 Byron Airport Master Plan, and guidance set forth in the most recent version of the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. It should be noted that changes to the safety/compatibility zones outside of the airport property are outside of the ULL and would not allow for additional land uses not otherwise allowed by the existing agricultural zoning. Pursuant to the definition of a “covered action,” as defined in Water Code Section 85057.5(a), the proposed project must meet all listed criteria in order to be considered a covered action under the Delta Plan. The third criterion in this list requires that the project “Will have a significant impact on the achievement of one of both of the coequal goals or the implementation of a government-sponsored flood control program to reduce risks to people, property, and State interests in the Delta.” However, the project does not meet this criterion, as it will not have a significant impact on the achievement of the coequal goals. 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-20 The Delta Plan includes policies that are considered essential to achieving the coequal goals, and the project is consistent with policy DP P1. Delta Plan Policy DP P1(a)(2) states, “New residential, commercial, and industrial development must be limited to the following areas, as shown in Appendix 6 and Appendix 7… Areas within Contra Costa County’s 2006 voter-approved urban limit line, except no new residential, commercial, and industrial development may occur on Bethel Island unless it is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan effective as of May 16, 2013.” Stated simply, projects located within Contra Costa County’s 2006 voter-approved Urban Limit Line are not considered a covered action, as urban development is allowed within the County ULL. Since the development that would occur as a result of the proposed project is wholly contained within the County ULL, the proposed project is consistent with policy DP P1, which would then result in the project supporting the achievement of the coequal goals. As it would support the achievement of the coequal goals, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on achievement of one or both of the coequal goals, and, therefore, the proposed project is not a covered action under the Delta Plan. Response P3-3 As described in Response P3-2, the proposed project is not a covered action under the Delta Plan, as it is consistent with policy DP P1 and supports the achievement of the Delta Plan’s coequal goals. As the comments identified in this section of the comment letter pertain to a situation where the project is, in fact, a covered action, these comments are not applicable to the proposed project. Response P3-4 The comment is acknowledged. Ph: 916.683.6000 | Fax: 916.683.6015 | www.wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov July 14, 2021 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 RE: To whom it may concern, This letter constitutes a formal request for tribal consultation under the provisions of Senate Bill 18 for the participation in land use decisions and for the mitigation of potential project impacts to tribal cultural resource for the above referenced project. The Tribe requests consultation on the following topics checked below, which shall be included in consultation if requested (Public Resources Code section 5097.9 and 5097.995: ___x__ Open space designations __x___ Recommended mitigation measures ___x__ Significant effects of the project ___x__ Architectural design and/or landscape design, signage, historical landmarks, and land acknowledgments The Tribe also requests consultation on the following discretionary topics checked below (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2, subd. (a): ___x__ Type of environmental review necessary ___x__ Significance of tribal cultural resources, including any regulations, policies or standards used by your agency to determine significance of tribal cultural resources. __x___ Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources __x___ Project alternatives and/or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that we may recommend, including, but not limited to: (1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. (2) Treating the resources with culturally appropriate dignity considering the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resources, including but not limited to the following: a. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. Letter T1 1 b. Protection the traditional use of the resource; and c. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. (3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. (4) Protecting the resource. Additionally, the Tribe would like to receive any cultural resources assessments or other assessments that have been completed on all or part of the project’s area of potential effect (APE), and area surrounding the APE including, but not limited to: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: ▪ A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. ▪ Copies of all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response. ▪ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are in the APE or surrounding the APE. ▪ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are in the potential APE or surrounding the APE; and ▪ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.  The Tribe requests to be present at any survey conducted on the Applicants behalf. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: ▪ Any reports that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. ▪ Any reports or inventories found under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10. All Wilton Rancheria correspondences shall be kept under this confidential section and only shared between the Tribe and lead agency. 3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage Commission. The request form can be found at http://www.nahc.ca.gov/slf_request.html. USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle name, township, range, and section required for the search. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE or areas surrounding the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE or areas surrounding the APE. 1 cont. 2 ▪ The Tribe shall be notified before any geotechnical testing is planned. Geotechnical testing has potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources and should be part of this consultation. 6. Aerial Map of the APE that depicts infrastructure, utility and/or trenching routes, enter and exit routes for equipment, staging areas, and any other proposed ground disturbance. 7. A diagram of known soil types with depths of each type i.e., borrowed soils, fill, or Native soils. The information gathered will provide us with a better understanding of the project and will allow the Tribe to compare your records with our database. We would like to remind your agency that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (b)(3) states that preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Section 15126.4, subd. (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines has been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal to mean that “feasible preservation in place must be adopted to mitigate impacts to historical resources of an archaeological nature unless the lead agency determines that another form of mitigation is available and provides superior mitigation of impacts.” Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, disapproved on other grounds, Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439. Please contact the Cultural Preservation Department, via email at cpd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov to set up a meeting. Sincerely, Wilton Rancheria 2 cont. 3 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-24 LETTER T1 COMMENTER: Wilton Rancheria DATE: July 14, 2021 Response T1-1 Wilton Rancheria requests formal consultation with the County under both Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. The County had previously contacted Wilton Rancheria on August 15, 2017, regarding consultation on the proposed project. A response was received from Wilton Rancheria requesting consultation on August 25, 2017. The County responded on September 7, 2017, and February 22, 2018, but no further communication was received until this Draft EIR comment letter dated July 14, 2021. Based on this comment letter, the County re-entered consultation with Wilton Rancheria regarding the proposed project on September 22, 2021. As described in the responses below, information was provided by the County and revisions made to the EIR mitigation measures that address the discovery of previously identified resources. Having received no further communication regarding the revised mitigation measures as presented in this Final EIR, consultation was closed by the County on January 21, 2022. Response T1-2 Per the request, the County has provided all available information regarding cultural resources and tribal cultural resources within the project site to Wilton Rancheria. Response T1-3 The County agrees that preservation in place is the preferred method of mitigation for archaeological sites whenever feasible. To date, the analysis conducted has not identified a historic or unique archaeological site, or a tribal cultural resource, that would be impacted by the proposed project. The County has consulted with Wilton Rancheria on improving the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR for the discovery of previously identified resources. The proposed revisions are reflected in this Final EIR, specifically mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 (procedures for construction monitoring and accidental discovery) and newly added MM-CUL-4 (environmental awareness training for construction workers). The revisions to the Draft EIR are shown below. MM-CUL-1 Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Prior to commencement of any construction activities involving ground disturbance, Contra Costa County, a qualified archaeologist, representatives from interested Native American Tribes, and the construction contractor shall be invited to meet or otherwise discuss by conference call the project site’s archaeological sensitivity and determine the duration and extent of monitoring for archaeological deposits that may be uncovered during construction. Given the present disturbed condition in some locations surrounding existing airport facilities, 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-25 areas of elevated potential for encountering unanticipated resources should be considered those within 500 feet of the historic-era corral and Brushy Creek, and no deeper than 4 feet below the present ground surface. An archaeological monitor and a monitor from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe shall be present for initial ground-disturbing work in these areas, after which the monitoring frequency shall be reduced to periodic spot- checks elsewhere. The monitoring strategy shall be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) based on the results of monitoring within areas of elevat ed archaeological sensitivity and as recommended by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native American Tribes. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed, work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted or directed to another location until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. If the resources are determined to be historical resources or unique (pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), the qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations prioritizing resource avoidance, or, where avoidance is infeasible, data recovery. MM-CUL-4 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The County shall require the contractor to provide a cultural resources and tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be developed in coordination with an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, as well as culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The County will invite Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to participate. The WEAP shall be conducted before any ground-disturbing construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP shall include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and shall outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP shall emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and shall discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values. 7 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Byron Airport Development Program EIR 9269 February 2022 7-26 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B yro n H w yVasco RdMap Created 3/2/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, M artinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,600 3,200800Fe et This map was created by the Contra C osta County Departm ent of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Som e base data, primarily City Lim its, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assum es no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. APN: 001-011-017General Plan Amendment (GP12-0003)General Plan Designations B yro n H w yVasco RdHoley Rd Armstrong Rd FalconWayByron Hot Springs RdClifton Court Rd N Bruns WayEagle CtOsprey CtCurr ent Genera l Plan Amended G ene ral Plan SITE SITE GP12-0003 Project Parcel Parcels General Plan Designations AL (Agricultural Lands) DR (Delta Recreation) OS (Open Space) PR (Parks and Recreation) PS (Public/Semi-Public) WA (Water) PR DR WA ALPS OS WA OS PR DR AL PS REVISED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING BYRON AIRPORT Special policies of this plan that apply to the East County Airport are as follows: 5-66. Establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential development around the planned airport Byron Airport shall not only be allowed if it is found to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the Airport Master Plan. Special Policies Regarding the Airport Land Use Commission: The Public Utilities Code requires that the intent and purpose of adopted Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) plans and policies be incorporated into the County General Plan. The following policies apply to the two County airports: 5-77. Within the ALUC Compatibility Zone B-1 Safety Zone 2, no new lot splits shall be allowed and buildings on existing lots of record shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to two stories in height. The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Safety Zones for the East Contra Costa Byron Airport: (1) agriculture; (2) open space; (3) low intensity park and recreation uses; (4) low occupant density public uses; and (5) parking of automobiles.; (6) logistics/warehouse/distribution; (7) light industry/business park; (8) office; and (9) commercial. P-1 A-3 A-3 -SG F-R A-3 P-1 A- 3 - X B y r o n H w y Armstrong Rd Holey Rd Byron Hot Springs RdORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Pages _______________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended byre-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) TO: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it inthe __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Burgis ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )5. F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Monica Nino, County Administratorand Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chair of the BoardBy__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ21-3262 - Contra Costa County Airports Division 2022-13 Byron S-28 RZ21-3262 A-3 P-1 (Heavy Agricultural) (Planned Unit) 2022-13 Page 1 of 1 Bruns Road7.7 acres 7 acres 1.9 acres 22.4 acres 6.3 acres 14.7 acres 5.6 acres16.1 acres 6.3 acres3.7 acres 4.7 acres 6.3 acres 4 acres 3.5 acres 2.2 acres 1.2 acres 1.7 acres 4.4 acres 1.7 acres 6.5 acres 10.4 acres 4.6 acres6.8 acres 1.9 acres 0.3 acres 0.5 acres 1.7 acres 2.3 acres 1 3.6 acres 2.4 acres 11.7 acres 5/23 1 2 / 3 0 6 6 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 º0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Runway CL Existing Building Restriction Line Safety Zones Aircraft Parking Aircraft Storage Non-Aviation Use Habitat Management Land Low Intensity Use Aviation Development Reserve Airport Airport Boundary Proposed Property Acquisition Counties Lake, River, Slough Canal Site Plan Byron Airport Development Program DEIR County File Nos. GP12-0003, DP14-3008 Attachment B SOURCE: Mead & Hunt 2018Path: Z:\Projects\j926901\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR Attachment 8 Proposed Permitted and Conditional Land Uses A-1 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE USES Open space - - P P AVIATION USES Aerial advertising P P - - Aerial photography and surveying services P P - - Aerial power line and pipeline patrol P P - - Agricultural aviation and crop dusting P P - - Air cargo and related services/activities P P - - Air charter and air taxi services P P - - Aircraft maintenance, repair, and servicing, including line maintenance and specialized maintenance (avionics, upholstery, propeller, helicopters, aircraft components, aircraft accessories, specific aircraft engines, aircraft detailing, specific pilot supplies, and the like) P P - - Aircraft management and flight support P P - - Aircraft rental and leasing P P - - Aircraft and aircraft parts sales P P - - Aircraft tie-downs and parking P P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-2 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land Aircraft washing and washing facilities P P - - Airport administrative offices P P - - Airport infrastructure (including aviation fueling facilities) P P - - Any other type of aeronautical activity or service not listed but is recognized and permissible by the FAA P P - - Automobile parking, short and long-term P P L - Automobile rental P P - - Aviation education programs (public, private or non-profit) P P - - Aviation museum P P - - Aviation-based recreation such as flying clubs, sightseeing, and skydiving P P - - Concessions/catering/vending facilities: FBO, publicly owned or operated, or third party facilities P P - - Civil Air Patrol P P - - Commercial aircraft operations and services P P - - Control tower and equipment P P - - Courtesy customer transportation to nearby destinations P P - - Fixed base operator (FBO) P P - - Flight schools, instruction, and training, including flight simulators P P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-3 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land General aviation terminal P P - - Ground services including, but not limited to, aircraft towing, baggage handling, power starts, air starts, lavatory services, potable water, aircraft cleaning, cabin supplies, and other related services not listed P P - - Hangars (corporate/executive, commercial and individual (including T-hangars) P P - - Meeting space and business center P P - - Meteorological infrastructure and equipment P P P - Navigational antennas and equipment P P P - Office space for aviation and aviation-related businesses P P - - Pilot lounge P P - - Recycling facility (aviation-related materials) P P - - Rental car offices and facilities P P - - Restrooms independent of other uses P P - - Sales of aviation fuel, oil, and petroleum products P P - - Trade schools/vocational training (aviation) P P - - Travel agency, including hotel and automobile reservations P P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-4 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land Unmanned aerial systems fleet monitoring activities and services P P - - Weather and flight planning services P P - - COMMERCIAL USES Automobile/vehicle and equipment sales, repair/service, storage, and facilities P P - - Banks and financial institutions [3] P P - - Building materials sales, storage, and service - P - - Business support services [3] P P - - Conference, convention, and meeting facilities (public or private) P P/L - - Cultural and entertainment facilities and services - L - - Food and beverage establishments, sales, and services [4] P P - - General commercial, wholesale, and retail businesses - P - - Golf course (public or private) - P P - Offices (business, professional, administrative/executive, medical/dental, multi-tenant) [3] P P - - Parking facility P P - - Sports/recreational facilities, including commercial facilities - L L - Trade schools/vocational training (non-aviation) [3] P P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-5 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land LIGHT INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING USES [5] Agricultural-industrial: limited processing, storage, and sales [6] - P - - Assembly of products [3] P P - - Business equipment assembly, services, and sales [3] P P - - Computer systems research and development [3] P P - - Container/package shipping and storage - P - - Corporate offices [3] P P - - Distribution and storage - P - - Equipment repair and maintenance (non-aviation) [3] P P - - Furniture manufacturing - P - - Electronic repair and assembly [3] P P - - General food and beverage manufacturing and processing [6] - P - - Machine shop P P - - Packaging P P - - Pharmaceutical manufacturing - P - - Printing and publishing companies, book binding - P - - Recycling facility (non-aviation materials) [7] - L - - Research and development, including testing and laboratories [8] - P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-6 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land Self-storage - P - - Software development [3] P P - - Technology manufacturing and support industries [3, 8] P P - - Warehouses [3] P P - - PUBLIC FACILITY USES Emergency services (i.e., law enforcement, fire protection) P P - - Government services (non- aviation) [3] P P - - Public transit and shuttle stops P P - - Public utilities P P - - Attachment E (Continued) A-7 September 2017 P Permitted Use (By-Right) [1] L Land Use Permit Required (Conditional) - Use Not Allowed Land Use Category Land Use Area Aviation Reserve [2] Aviation Related Low Intensity Use Habitat Management Land Notes: [1] All permitted uses are subject to compliance with adopted design and development standards and must be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Any use not defined as permitted shall not be allowed unless determined by the Planning Director to be sufficiently similar in nature to a permitted use. Any use determined to be inconsistent with the ALUCP or that poses a hazard to aircraft operation shall be prohibited. [2] All uses within the Aviation Reserve Area must be consistent with the approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and consistent with FAA regulation and guidance. [3] If located within the Aviation Reserve area, these uses must be within a building and may not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area. [4] Food and beverage establishments are permitted in the Aviation Reserve area if they are accessory to a primary use. No more than two stand- alone food and beverage establishments, such as fast-food restaurants, may be established on airport property. See also catering (FBO, publicly operated, or third party). [5] All manufacturing and processing must be conducted entirely within an enclosed building. [6] Subject to the County determination that water demand can be adequately served. [7] Must be conducted within an enclosed building. Recycling of hazardous materials, including household hazardous waste, paint, batteries, etc. is subject to approval of a land use permit. [8] Subject to the County determination that the equipment to be used does not have the potential for interference with airport operations. 08/02/2021 County: Contra Costa - Contra Costa County Daniel Barrios 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94533, USA Daniel.Barrios@dcdcccounty.us Construction Site Well Review (CSWR) ID: 1012275 Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001031023, 001011013, 001011017, 001011033, 001011037 Property Owner(s): Keith Freitas Project Location Address: 5698 Armstrong Road Byron, California 94514 Project Title: Byron Airport Development Program Public Resources Code (PRC) § 3208.1 establishes well reabandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil, gas, and geothermal wells. The California Geologic Energy Mangagement Division (CalGEM) has received and reviewed the above referenced project dated 8/2/2021. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, the Division provides the following well evaluation. The project is located in Contra Costa County, within the boundaries of the following fields: Any Field Our records indicate there are 3 known oil or gas wells located within the project boundary as identified in the application. Page 1 • Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 3 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 The Division categorically advices against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure. There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. The Division acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current Division requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantees that such abandonments will not leak. The Division advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to the Division in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. The Division expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately. Failure to plug and reabandon the well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform reabandonment well work, pursuant to PRC § 3208.1, and 3224. PRC § 3208.1 give the Division the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local Page 2 permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for reabandonment as: 1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment. 2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be reabandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment. 3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the reabandonment. No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from the Division. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. The Division also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR §1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from the Division is required before work can start. The Division makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer: 1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements Page 3 near oil or gas wells, the Division recommends that information regarding the above identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property. 2. The Division recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development. As indicated in PRC § 3106, the Division has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to the Division's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC §§ 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC §§ 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within the Division's jurisdictional authority. The Division does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues. If during development activities, any wells are encountered that were not part of this review, the property owner is expected to immediately notify the Division's construction site well review engineer in the Northern district office, and file for Division review an amended site plan with well casing diagrams. The District office will send a follow-up well evaluation letter to the property owner and local permitting agency. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (661) 334-3665 or via email at Rohit.Sharma@conservation.ca.gov. Sincerely, Rohit Sharma Acting Northern District Deputy cc: Colin Lawson - Submitter cc: Daniel Barrios - Plan Checker cc: Brian Grattidge - Project Manager cc: Keith Freitas - Property Owner Page 4 Wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law & Not Projected to be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded The wells listed below are not abandoned to current Division requirements as prescribed by law, and based upon information provided, are projected to be built over or have future access impeded. API Well Designation Operator Well Evaluations 0401300237 Hannum Trust 1 Rinde Oil Co.Insufficient hydrocarbon zone plug. Insufficient surface plug. 0401300238 Hannum Trust 2 Rinde Oil Co.Insufficient surface plug. 0401300239 ROCO-Hannum Trust 2 Santa Fe Minerals Insufficient hydrocarbon zone plug. Insufficient casing shoe plug. Insufficient base of fresh water plug. Insufficient surface plug. Page 5 August 27, 2021 Daniel Barrios Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Byron Airport Development Program, County File Numbers: GP12-0003, DP14-3008, State Clearinghouse Number: 2017092059 Mr. Barrios, The Contra Costa Water District (District) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Byron Airport Development Program EIR (EIR) dated June 2021. The project is located in southeastern Contra Costa County, south of Byron Hot Springs, west of the Clifton Court Forebay, north of the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plan and east of Armstrong Road. The District is submitting comments in relation to the Phase 2 Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (Phase 2 Expansion), a project of state-wide importance. The Phase 2 Expansion is a collaborative regional project that will improve Bay Area water supply reliability and water quality while protecting Delta fisheries. The Phase 2 Expansion will also provide additional Delta ecosystem benefits as well as be able to deliver water to wildlife refuges through its regional intertie (Transfer-Bethany Pipeline). The EIR states on page 3-2, Cumulative Context, that “There are no currently proposed projects in the immediate project vicinity” and for this reason the County relied on the project method from adopted plans for its cumulative effect’s analysis. However, the District is in the permitting phase of the Phase 2 Expansion which will increase the capacity of the existing 160-thousand acre foot (TAF) Los Vaqueros Reservoir to 275 TAF and, among other conveyance facilities, will construct the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, an approximately 8.0 mile pipeline from the existing Transfer Facility, traversing the Byron Airport Property in the vicinity of Armstrong Road, and continuing south to terminate at the California Aqueduct. Accordingly, the District request that the Phase 2 Expansion, specifically the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, be included in the cumulative context and effects analysis of the EIR (i.e., construction, operation and maintenance effects of the Transfer- Bethany Pipeline in the vicinity of the Byron Airport for resources areas where a cumulative condition is reasonably foreseeable). On background, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, California – Great Basin Region (Reclamation) as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the District as the lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) previously released a joint Draft EIS/EIR in Daniel Barrios Byron Airport Development Program, County File Numbers: GP12-0003, DP14-3008, State Clearinghouse Number: 2017092059 August 27, 2021 Page 2 February 2009. The Draft EIS/EIR included analysis of four action alternatives: two that include a reservoir expansion to 275 TAF and a Transfer-Bethany Pipeline that traversed along Armstrong Road. Multiple County departments including the Department of Conservation and Development, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Public Works Department provided comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. The Final EIS/EIR (certified March 31, 2010), was later modified by the August 2013 EIR Addendum #1 (together, the Final EIS/EIR). The Final EIS/EIR analyzed, among other alternatives, a Timing Variant under which Los Vaqueros Reservoir would be expanded first to 160 TAF (Phase 1 Expansion) and later to 275 TAF (Phase 2 Expansion). Ultimately, the Phase 1 Expansion, which did not include the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, was approved and completed in 2012. On June 29, 2017, Reclamation and the District published the Draft Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR which disclosed that the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline would start at the same place on the north end and travel along the same alignment as proposed in the Final EIS/EIR for the first 7.1 miles to an area south of the Byron Airport. Beyond the 7.1-mile marker, the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline was modified, consistent with the Reclamation 2016 Value Planning Study, to fully avoid tunneling and terminate at the California Aqueduct rather than the Bethany Reservoir. The County Flood Control and Water Conservation District commented on the document. On March 8, 2018, in response to concern raised about the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, the District and Reclamation held a meeting with the Department of Conservation and Development, Department of Public Works and Airports division. On February 28, 2020, Reclamation and the District published the Final Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR. On May 13, 2020, the Final Supplement to the Final EIS/EIR was certified and the Phase 2 Expansion, including the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, was adopted by the District’ Board (Resolution-No-20-006-PDF (ccwater.com). Reclamation plans to execute it’s Record of Decision in early 2022. All environmental documents related to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project are available here: Environmental Documents | Contra Costa Water District, CA (ccwater.com). Thank you for your consideration of District comments to include the Phase 2 Expansion in the cumulative context and effects analysis. The District looks forward to continued coordination with the various department at the County on the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline. If you have any questions about this letter or the Phase 2 Expansion please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Jennifer Johnson Principal Planner 1 715 P Street, 15-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.5511 DELTACOUNCIL.CA.GOV CHAIR Susan Tatayon MEMBERS Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Maria Mehranian Daniel Zingale Don Nottoli Christy Smith Virginia Madueño EXECUTIVE OFFICER Jessica R. Pearson August 30, 2021 Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios 30 Muir Road Martinez, Ca 94553 Delivered via email: Daniel.Barrios@dcd.cccounty.us RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Byron Airport Development Program, SCH# 2017092059 Dear Daniel Barrios: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Byron Airport Development Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). The Delta Stewardship Council (Council) recognizes the objectives of the Byron Airport Development Program (project), as described in the Draft EIR: Contra Costa County intends to amend its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan), and Planned Unit District zoning to substantially broaden the range of uses allowed “by-right” on airport property. Of interest to the Council are areas located outside of the 2006 voter-approved urban limit line, including portions of the new safety/compatibility zones, specifically, B1 and B3 (new Safety Zone 2), and B2 (new Safety Zone 3). The Council is an independent state agency established by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, codified in Division 35 of the California Water Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 2 Code, sections 85000-85350 (Delta Reform Act). The Delta Reform Act charges the Council with furthering California’s coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) ecosystem. (Water Code, § 85054.) The Delta Reform Act further states that the coequal goals are to be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place. The Council is charged with furthering California’s coequal goals for the Delta through the adoption and implementation of the Delta Plan. (Wat. Code, § 85300.) Pursuant to the Delta Reform Act, the Council has adopted the Delta Plan, a comprehensive long-term management plan for the Delta and Suisun Marsh that furthers the coequal goals. The Delta Plan contains regulatory policies, which are set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, sections 5001-5015. A state or local agency that proposes to carry out, approve, or fund a qualifying action in whole or in part in the Delta, called a "covered action," is required to prepare a written certification of consistency with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with the Delta Plan and submit that certification to the Council prior to implementation of the covered action. (Wat. Code, § 85225.) Water Code section 85057.5, subdivision (a), defines a covered action as a plan, program, or project as defined pursuant to Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code that meets all the following conditions: 1. Will occur in whole or in part within the boundaries of the legal Delta (Water Code, §12220) or Suisun Marsh (Pub. Resources Code, § 29101). The approximate boundaries of these areas are publicly available on the Open Data Portal at https://data.ca.gov/dataset/legal-delta-boundary and https://data.ca.gov/dataset/suisun-marsh-boundary. The eastern portion of Byron Airport is located within the Delta. 2. Will be carried out, approved, or funded by the State or a local public agency. Contra Costa County is the local public agency that will approve and carry out the project. 3. Will have a significant impact on the achievement of one or both of the coequal goals or the implementation of a government-sponsored flood control program to reduce risks to people, property, and State interests in Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 3 the Delta. The project would have a significant impact on the achievement of the coequal goal to protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem. 4. Is covered by one or more of the regulatory policies contained in the Delta Plan (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, §§ 5003-5015). Delta Plan regulatory policies that may apply to the project are discussed below. The State or local agency approving, funding, or carrying out the project must determine if the project is a covered action and, if so, submit a Certification of Consistency to the Council prior to project implementation. (Wat. Code, § 85225; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5001(j)(3).) COMMENTS REGARDING DELTA PLAN POLICIES AND POTENTIAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION The following section describes the Delta Plan regulatory policies that may apply to the proposed project based on the available information in the Draft EIR. This information is offered to assist DCD to prepare environmental documents that could be used to support a future Certification of Consistency for the project. This information may also assist DCD to describe the relationship between the project and the Delta Plan in the Final EIR. General Policy 1: Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan Delta Plan Policy G P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002) specifies what must be addressed in a Certification of Consistency for a covered action. The following is a subset of policy requirements which a project shall fulfill to be considered consistent with the Delta Plan: Mitigation Measures Delta Plan Policy G P1(b)(2) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002(b)(2)) requires covered actions not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must include all applicable feasible mitigation measures adopted and incorporated into the Delta Plan as amended April 26, 2018 (unless the measures are within the exclusive jurisdiction of an agency other than the agency that files the Certification of Consistency), or substitute mitigation measures that the agency finds are equally or more effective. These Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 4 mitigation measures are identified in Delta Plan Appendix O and are available at: https://deltacouncil.ca.gov/pdf/delta-plan/2018-appendix-o- mitigation-monitoring-and-reporting-program.pdf. The Draft EIR proposes project mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and minerals; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and transportation and traffic. The mitigation measures adopted in the Final EIR must be equally or more effective than applicable feasible Delta Plan mitigation measures. In a future Certification of Consistency for the project, DCD should document how the adopted mitigation measures are equally or more effective than the applicable mitigation measures contained in Delta Plan Appendix O. Best Available Science Delta Plan Policy G P1(b)(3) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002(b)(3)) states that actions subject to Delta Plan regulations must document use of best available science as relevant to the purpose and nature of the project. The Delta Plan defines best available science as “the best scientific information and data for informing management and policy decisions.” (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 23, § 5001 (f).) Best available science is also required to be consistent with the guidelines and criteria in Appendix 1A of the Delta Plan (https://deltacouncil.ca.gov/pdf/delta-plan/2015-appendix-1a.pdf). Delta as Place Policy 1: Locate New Urban Development Wisely Delta Plan Policy DP P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010) places certain limits on new urban development within the Delta. New residential, commercial, or industrial development must be limited to areas that city or county general plans designate for such development as of the date of the Delta Plan’s adoption (May 16, 2013). In Contra Costa County, new residential, commercial, and industrial development within the Delta must be limited to areas within the 2006 voter-approved urban limit line (ULL) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010(a)(2)). This policy is intended to strengthen existing Delta communities while protecting farmland and open space, providing land for ecosystem restoration needs, and reducing flood risk. Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 5 According to the Draft EIR, the General Plan designations for the Byron Airport property are Public/Semi-Public (PS) and Open Space (OS) (Draft EIR, p. 2-6). Although most of the Byron Airport is located within the ULL, the portion of the Airport designated as Open Space is outside the ULL. This area is subject to Delta Plan Policy DP P1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5010). Although the Draft EIR states that the General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change, ALUCP Policy 5-77 would be amended to reflect the new compatibility zone (Zone B- 1 would become Safety Zone 2) designations and additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP for Byron Airport (Draft EIR p. 2-6). The project proposes acquisition of an 11.7-acre property on Armstrong Road that is currently designated for Agricultural use and update the general plan designation to PS (Draft EIR, p. 2-6). This proposed acquisition is located within the ULL, and is therefore not subject to DP P1. Based on review of the Draft EIR, the locations of the project site and the ULL, and the existing and proposed General Plan designations, the project may be consistent with DP P1, although DCD must identify this in a Certification of Consistency for the project. DCD should revise the Final EIR to identify DP P1 requirements in the regulatory setting of the Land Use and Planning section. CLOSING COMMENTS The Council will continue to track the Byron Airport Development Program’s progress and invites DCD to engage in early consultation as future program updates are considered, in order to discuss project features and mitigation measures that would promote consistency with the Delta Plan. More information on covered actions, early consultation, and the certification process can be found on the Council website, https://coveredactions.deltacouncil.ca.gov. Please contact Avery.Livengood@deltacouncil.ca.gov, Environmental Program Manager, with any questions. Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Daniel Barrios August 30, 2021 Page 6 Sincerely, Jeff Henderson, AICP Deputy Executive Officer Delta Stewardship Council Ph: 916.683.6000 | Fax: 916.683.6015 | www.wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov July 14, 2021 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 RE: To whom it may concern, This letter constitutes a formal request for tribal consultation under the provisions of Senate Bill 18 for the participation in land use decisions and for the mitigation of potential project impacts to tribal cultural resource for the above referenced project. The Tribe requests consultation on the following topics checked below, which shall be included in consultation if requested (Public Resources Code section 5097.9 and 5097.995: ___x__ Open space designations __x___ Recommended mitigation measures ___x__ Significant effects of the project ___x__ Architectural design and/or landscape design, signage, historical landmarks, and land acknowledgments The Tribe also requests consultation on the following discretionary topics checked below (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2, subd. (a): ___x__ Type of environmental review necessary ___x__ Significance of tribal cultural resources, including any regulations, policies or standards used by your agency to determine significance of tribal cultural resources. __x___ Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources __x___ Project alternatives and/or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that we may recommend, including, but not limited to: (1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. (2) Treating the resources with culturally appropriate dignity considering the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resources, including but not limited to the following: a. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. b. Protection the traditional use of the resource; and c. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. (3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. (4) Protecting the resource. Additionally, the Tribe would like to receive any cultural resources assessments or other assessments that have been completed on all or part of the project’s area of potential effect (APE), and area surrounding the APE including, but not limited to: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: ▪ A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. ▪ Copies of all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response. ▪ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are in the APE or surrounding the APE. ▪ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are in the potential APE or surrounding the APE; and ▪ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.  The Tribe requests to be present at any survey conducted on the Applicants behalf. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: ▪ Any reports that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. ▪ Any reports or inventories found under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10. All Wilton Rancheria correspondences shall be kept under this confidential section and only shared between the Tribe and lead agency. 3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage Commission. The request form can be found at http://www.nahc.ca.gov/slf_request.html. USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle name, township, range, and section required for the search. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE or areas surrounding the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE or areas surrounding the APE. ▪ The Tribe shall be notified before any geotechnical testing is planned. Geotechnical testing has potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources and should be part of this consultation. 6. Aerial Map of the APE that depicts infrastructure, utility and/or trenching routes, enter and exit routes for equipment, staging areas, and any other proposed ground disturbance. 7. A diagram of known soil types with depths of each type i.e., borrowed soils, fill, or Native soils. The information gathered will provide us with a better understanding of the project and will allow the Tribe to compare your records with our database. We would like to remind your agency that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (b)(3) states that preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Section 15126.4, subd. (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines has been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal to mean that “feasible preservation in place must be adopted to mitigate impacts to historical resources of an archaeological nature unless the lead agency determines that another form of mitigation is available and provides superior mitigation of impacts.” Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, disapproved on other grounds, Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439. Please contact the Cultural Preservation Department, via email at cpd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov to set up a meeting. Sincerely, Wilton Rancheria Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, March 9, 2022 – 6:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Byron Airport Development Program County File(s): GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Applicant/Owner: Contra Costa County Public Works Department – Airports Division (Applicant & Owner) and Jay and Carol Wyant (Owners) General Plan: Zoning: Public and Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) & Agricultural Lands (AL) Planned Unit District (P-1) & Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) Site Address/Location: 550 Eagle Court, Byron, CA 94514 / APN: 001-011-013, 001-011-017, 001-011-033, 001-011-037, 001-031-023 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. Project Planner: Daniel Barrios, Project Planner (925) 655-2901 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Complete Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project is a County-initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA), Development Plan Modification (DPM), Rezone, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Amendment for the Byron Airport to expand the range of uses allowed on the airport property. The proposed GPA would include revised policies that update and clarify the range of land uses and activities allowed at Byron Airport, similar to those already adopted for the County’s other general aviation airport, Buchanan Field in Concord, as well as redesignation of an 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from AL to PS. The current Development Plan for the airport would be modified to permit all of the new uses either by-right or with approval of a land use (conditional) permit. The DPM would also establish certain development standards, such as maximum building heights, maximum floor area, landscaping requirements, etc. The rezone would change the 11.7-acre parcel from A-3 to P-1 to be part of the Byron Airport Development Program. The ALUCP would be updated with new policies and maps specific to Byron Airport, which would reflect the 2017 Airport Layout Plan for Byron Airport, the 2005 Byron Airport Master Plan, and guidance set forth in the most recent version of the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 2 of 15 II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: A. OPEN the public hearing on the Byron Airport Development Program, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. B. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors: 1. CERTIFY that the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before Project approval and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; 2. CERTIFY the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program; 3. ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Project; 4. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based; 5. ADOPT a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation of an 11.7-acre parcel from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi-Public (PS) and to modify the language of General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element Policies 5-66 and 5-77 as described in Section V.B. below (County File #GP12-0003); 6. ADOPT an ordinance rezoning the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from A-3 to P-1 (County File #RZ21-3262); 7. ADOPT the findings in support of the Byron Airport Development Program; 8. APPROVE the Development Plan Modification (County File #DP14-3008); 9. APPROVE the conditions of approval for the Byron Airport Development Program; 10. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Completion with the County Clerk. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject site’s General Plan land use designations include Public and Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Agricultural Lands (AL). The PS designation includes properties owned by public governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc., The OS designation includes publicly owned open space lands CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 3 of 15 which are not designated as Public and Semi-Public, Watershed, or Parks and Recreation. Lands designated Open Space include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources, or geologic hazards. OS also includes privately-owned properties for which future development rights have been deeded to a public agency or private entity, such as a land trust. The primary purpose of the AL designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The proposed project is located primarily within the PS designation, in which public airports are a compatible use. The existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas are designated as PS. The proposed project includes the redesignation of the 11.7-acre parcel from AL to PS, which, after its redesignation, would result in the entire project being located within the PS designation. The remainder of the airport property is designated OS, consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property. B. Zoning: Byron Airport is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1); the 11.7-acre parcel is zoned Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The Department of Conservation and Development determined that the project required preparation of an EIR and, in accordance with CEQA, distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on September 21, 2017. The Draft EIR was released for public review on July 1, 2021, with the 60-day public comment period ending on August 30, 2021. The Final EIR is included in this staff report for the County Planning Commission’s consideration. The EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts that would occur if the project was implemented and recommended mitigation measures that would reduce most, but not all, of the potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels; some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The attached CEQA Findings contain a statement of overriding considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts. All impacts and mitigation measures are spelled out in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All mitigation measures are also included in the attached conditions of approval. Further discussion of the project’s environmental impacts is provided in Section VII below. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION Existing Site Condition: Byron Airport is located in southeastern Contra Costa County. The airport property consists of 1,427 acres, including 1,307 acres south of Armstrong Road and 120 acres north of Armstrong Road. The proposed Byron Airport Development Program (project) site excludes the 120 acres north of Armstrong Road but includes an 11.7-acre parcel located between the airport property and the Bethany Irrigation District Canal, for a total of approximately 1,319 acres. The project site includes the existing airport facilities and areas proposed for development (referred to as the development area). However, most of the project site is reserved for habitat management. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 4 of 15 Byron Airport has two nonintersecting runways, each with a parallel taxiway and several connector taxiways. General aviation facilities are generally concentrated in the west-facing “V” formed by the two runways and include aircraft surface storage, runway apron, hangars, and office space. The majority of these facilities were constructed when the airport was built in the early 1990s. Byron Airport does not have a control tower. Buildings include the 2,400-square-foot administration building (500 Eagle Court) and a 7,500-square-foot maintenance hangar (505 Eagle Court). The administration building is served by 18 parking spaces. A fuel farm is located southeast of the maintenance hangar. Accessory structures include a 300-square- foot pump house for fire protection, east of the intersection of the two runways. A small building on the north side of the airport (6900 Falcon Way) was part of the original Byron Airpark and is currently leased to Bay Area Sky Diving. Hangars are arranged in rows, starting northwest of the administration building. There is a 28-unit T-hangar constructed in 1996, two rows of portable T-hangars (39 units), and two executive hangars (10 and 12 units). The Byron Jet Center (760 Osprey Court) is located northwest of the executive hangars. Tie downs for based aircraft and transient aircraft are located between the hangars and the taxiways. A wash rack is located at the east side of the executive hangar row. Wastewater from the wash rack drains though an oil–water separator to a leach field located to the east, between the wash rack and Taxiway A. Electrical power is supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric Company via Holey Road. There is no natural gas service at the airport. The on-site water system consists of a domestic well with a 4,000-gallon holding tank, booster pump, and chlorinator; however, this water supply is non-potable. Drinking water is provided by bottled water deliveries to the airport. The sanitary system consists of a 3,000-gallon septic tank and lift station that pumps to a leach field located southwest of the aircraft apron. Surrounding Land Use: Byron Airport is located on the western edge of the Central Valley. Byron Hot Springs, a now abandoned resort and former World War II prisoner-of-war camp, is located north of the airport. Agricultural and rural residential uses border the east and west sides of the airport property. To the south are agricultural lands and property owned by East Bay Regional Park District. Nearby communities include Byron, approximately 2.5 miles north, Discovery Bay 4 miles to the northeast, and Mountain House, approximately 4 miles southeast. IV. BACKGROUND The original Byron Airport Master Plan (Airport Master Plan) was adopted in 1986, and the airport was opened in 1994. The Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005 and identifies a 20-year plan to support aviation activities at the airport. The 2005 Airport Master Plan also identifies potential development opportunities on airport property to increase airport revenue and achieve economic self-sufficiency. In 2015, the County identified a suite of proposed land uses for development on airport property, building on the framework of the 2005 Airport Master Plan. The uses included aviation reserve land uses, which would be CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 5 of 15 directly associated with aircraft operations (e.g., hangar development, aircraft repair and maintenance), and aviation-related land uses, which would not be aeronautical uses but would be compatible with on-going aircraft operations (i.e., aviation-compatible uses). Examples of aviation-compatible uses include warehouse use and light industry. The County’s current General Plan policies, zoning regulations, and ALUCP policies specific to the airport would not accommodate many of the proposed land uses. Therefore, the County’s Department of Conservation and Development and Public Works Department – Airports Division are working collaboratively to amend the General Plan, zoning, and ALUCP to enable on-site development in accordance with the proposed Airport Master Plan, as well as the Byron Airport Planned Unit District (P-1) is being amended to identify additional aviation-reserve uses and aviation-compatible uses that would be permitted by right. The project would provide for both aviation development and non-aviation (airport-related) development. Aviation uses include aircraft storage, administrative facilities, instructional facilities, fixed base operators, pilot and passenger terminal improvements, cargo facilities, and aircraft repair and service. Non-aviation development includes a wide range of industrial, commercial, and office uses that benefit from proximity to the airport and the regional roadway network. These uses may include warehousing and distribution; light manufacturing; research and development; regional retail, including construction materials and home goods; service commercial; and offices. Local retail and food service may also be provided to serve the airport and local residents. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Objectives: The County identified the following project objectives: 1. Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. 2. Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport-related land uses. 3. Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. 4. Provide a streamlined planning framework for future development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. B. General Plan Amendment: The County General Plan designates the existing aviation facilities and the master-planned development areas as Public/Semi-Public (PS). The remainder of the airport property is designated as Open Space (consistent with the habitat management use for the non-developable airport property). The General Plan designation for the existing airport property will not change. The 11.7-acre acquisition parcel would be redesignated from Agricultural Lands (AL) to PS to be consistent with the rest of the developable airport property (see Attachment 4, Proposed General Plan Amendment Map). CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 6 of 15 General Plan Policy 5-66 states, “Establishment of commercial, industrial or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed.” This policy would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on airport property if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Airport Master Plan for Byron Airport. Policy 5-77 would be updated to reflect the new compatibility zone designations (Zone B-1 would become Safety Zone 2) and the additional uses at the airport that may be found compatible under the updated ALUCP for Byron Airport. See Attachment 5 for the full text of the General Plan policy changes. C. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update: Every county in California that contains at least one public airport must prepare an Airport Land Use Plan (also known as an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan), per the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq.). The purpose of ALUCPs is to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports. ALUCPs achieve this by identifying land use types and intensities that are compatible with four key factors: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, provides guidance on airport land use planning in its California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The ALUCP for Byron Airport was adopted in 2000, with minor modifications in 2006 and 2016. The current ALUCP reflects the original 1986 Airport Master Plan for the East Contra Costa County Airport (now Byron Airport). The Byron Airport Master Plan was updated in 2005. In addition, the Airport Layout Plan—required by the Federal Aviation Administration and a main component of the Airport Master Plan—was updated in 2016. The standards used in the current ALUCP for Byron Airport are based on the 1993 edition of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Caltrans has updated this guidance document twice since that time, in 2002 and 2011. Thus, the current ALUCP for Byron Airport does not reflect the latest planning and forecasts for the airport, and is based on dated compatibility planning guidance. The 2016 Airport Layout Plan was update is not reflected in the current ALUCP for Byron Airport. The effect is an ALUCP that does not allow the type of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan, which would provide for the economic development and fiscal self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport would revise the policies for Byron Airport, consistent with current Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the policy framework in effect at Buchanan Airport. The Countywide policies in the ALUCP affecting Byron Airport would not change. Key changes for Byron Airport policies are described below by category: safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. 1. Safety: Several important changes would be made to Byron Airport’s safety policies. These are driven primarily by applying the latest Caltrans guidance to the airport. The current ALUCP for Byron Airport uses six “composite” zones known as zones A, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D. These zones combine noise and safety criteria to determine compatible land uses. The proposed ALUCP update would identify six safety zones (1 through 6) consistent with the current Airport Land CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 7 of 15 Use Planning Handbook. By using more carefully defined safety zones and by addressing noise compatibility separately, a greater range of development types would be allowed. In addition, applying current Airport Land Use Planning Handbook standards for non-residential development would increase the intensity of development that would be allowed, and thereby support the County’s goals for economic development at the airport. 2. Noise: The proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport would separate the noise criteria from the safety criteria when determining compatible use. Noise compatibility is based on noise contours developed from forecasted aviation activity. The aviation forecasts for the airport remain valid and would not be revised as part of the proposed ALUCP update. Therefore, the noise contours would not change. The commercial and light industrial uses planned for the airport are not considered to be noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, separating the noise criteria from the safety zones would increase the range and intensity of non-residential land uses. 3. Airspace Protection: Airspace protection policies regulate development that may interfere with the safe navigation of aircraft, including physical structures or potential hazards such as dust, smoke, light/glare, and wildlife. Minor changes would be made to airspace policies to reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan, including runway approach profiles. However, no significant changes would be made to the policies, and there would be no effect on allowable land uses. 4. Overflight: Overflight policies do not regulate land use but identify the areas subject to noise from overflight (as compared to noise from aircraft approaches and departures). The overflight area, along with airspace protection discussed above, helps to define the airport influence area, in which home buyers must be notified of the presence of the airport. Overflight policies also identify areas where aviation easements (dedicating airspace rights to the airport) should be acquired. The notification area would be slightly larger in the proposed ALUCP update for Byron Airport to reflect the 2016 Airport Layout Plan, but there would be no change to policies that would affect allowable land uses or future development. D. Development Plan Modification and Rezone: The airport property is currently zoned P- 1. The P-1 zoning is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open space areas while ensuring compliance with the General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Byron Airport P-1 zoning only allows aviation-related uses, agriculture, and open space. The amended Planned Unit District will identify four separate development areas: Aviation, Airport Related, Low-Intensity Use, and Habitat Management (see Attachment 7, Proposed Site Plan). These areas are further described below. The most important change would be to the airport-related uses, which would allow non-residential development that is compatible with the ALUCP for Byron Airport. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 8 of 15 These uses would include light industry, warehousing and logistics, commercial, and low- intensity office. In addition, the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County would be rezoned from A-3 to P-1 in order to be included as part of the Byron Airport Development Program (see Attachment 6, Proposed Rezone Ordinance Map). The Byron Airport Development Program also includes the following modifications to the P-1: 1. Aviation: A total of 23.5 acres is designated for aviation uses, located adjacent to the taxiways and runways. The aviation area is adjacent to a developed 10.5-acre aircraft storage area and 9.7-acre aircraft parking area south of the main runway (Runway 12-30). Proposed land uses in the aviation area include airport infrastructure (e.g., control tower, terminals), hangars, fixed-base operators, businesses that directly support aviation and travel (e.g., aircraft service and fuel, rental car facilities, pilots lounge, meeting facilities), and businesses that directly rely on aviation (e.g., agricultural aviation, aerial surveys and photography, air charter businesses, air cargo, just-in-time delivery). 2. Non-Aviation (Airport Related): Approximately 46.6 acres of Byron Airport is designated for non-aviation uses. This includes 34.9 acres east of the main runway on the existing airport property, and 11.7 acres in the adjacent parcel. The 46.6 acres would support commercial and light-industrial uses that are compatible with airport operations and would benefit from being located at an airport, with access to Highway 4, Interstate 205, and Interstate 580. A variety of retail, service, warehouse and distribution, light manufacturing, and low-density office uses would be allowed. 3. Low-Intensity Use: The areas adjacent to the ends of the primary runway and within the “no build” area adjacent to the runway, approximately 31 acres, are designated as low-intensity use. No structures would be allowed within this area. Infrastructure improvements may be allowed within this area. 4. Habitat Management Lands: Most of the project site, approximately 814 acres, is owned and managed by the County as wildlife habitat, consistent with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project does not propose any changes to habitat management lands. 5. Development Reserve: The 2005 Airport Master Plan identified a potential development area larger than the one currently under consideration. The areas that have been removed from the aviation and non-aviation development area are identified as “development reserve” in the proposed site plan. There are no land uses assigned to this category, it merely denotes an area that was previously identified for potential development in the 2005 Airport Master Plan but is no longer considered part of the proposed development program. 6. Development Scenario: Taking into account the land use areas described above and the proposed safety zones, DCD and Airports Division staff developed a preferred development scenario. This scenario represents a reasonable CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 9 of 15 distribution of compatible land uses on the airport property and forms the basis of the impacts analysis in the EIR. The development scenario, presented in Table 1, assigns a percentage of available acreage to the various uses (e.g., light industry), and estimates the potential building area as increments of 1,000 square feet for those uses based on floor-to-area ratio. The number of people who may occupy the site at any given time was then calculated using intensity factors from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the County’s General Plan. The percentages assigned to each non-aviation land use are estimated, but future land use demand would drive the actual development scenario. As long as the overall building area is not exceeded, the impacts of development is not anticipated to exceed the analysis conducted as part of this project. Ongoing monitoring of land uses would ensure that incoming land uses do not exceed the impacts analysis of this proposed program. Table 1 Development Scenario Land Use Acres FAR Building Area (ksf) Persons per ksf Total Persons Persons per Acre Non-Aviation Use Logistics/Warehouse/Distribution (45% of acreage)1 20.97 0.30 274 1.0 274 13 Light Industry/Business Park (30% of acreage)2 13.98 0.35 213 1.4 298 21 Office (10% of acreage)3 4.66 0.40 81 4.0 325 70 Commercial (15% of acreage)4 6.99 0.30 91 5.7 522 75 Subtotal Non-Aviation Use 46.6 — 659 — 1,419 — Aviation Use Aircraft Storage 11.75 0.25 128 0.3 32 3 Aviation 11.75 0.3 154 0.5 77 7 Subtotal Aviation Use 23.5 — 282 — 109 — TOTAL 70.1 — 941 — 1,528 — 1 FAR = floor-to-area ratio; ksf = thousand square feet. 2 Note that the acreages shown for individual land uses are based on a percentage of the total available non-aviation and aviation development areas and should not be confused with a legal parcel or surveyed area. 3 FAR is based on comparable development, and falls within the range allowed by Table 3-4 of the County General Plan Land Use Element (Contra Costa County 2005d). 4 Persons per acre is based on an intensity of 725 square feet per person, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and comparable development. 5 An intensity of 250 square feet per person was used. 6 An intensity of 175 square feet per person was used, which would encompass large-scale (“big box”) retail. VI. PUBLIC CONSULTATION & COMMENTS ON THE EIR The Department conferred with a number of federal, State, and local agencies and other County departments prior to and during preparation of the EIR. Correspondence was CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 10 of 15 received in response to the NOP, and written comments were received from the following agencies and organizations during the public comment period for the Draft EIR: • Wilton Rancheria • California Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division • Delta Stewardship Council • Contra Costa Water District All correspondence received during and after the 60-day public comment period for the Draft EIR and all responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR. VII. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Draft EIR identifies environmental impacts which would occur if the project was implemented. Potentially significant and/or significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the following Draft EIR topic areas: A. Aesthetics: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.1 (pages 3.1-1 to 3.1-53) and in the Final EIR. The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts to views from surrounding roadways, including Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. B. Air Quality: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.2 (pages 3.2-1 to 3.2-42) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur during both construction and operation. C. Biology: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.3 (pages 3.3-1 to 3.1-38) and in the Final EIR. The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts to a variety of special-status plant and animal species and their habitats. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. D. Cultural Resources: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.4 (pages 3.4-1 to 3.4-22) and in the Final EIR. The project site is in the vicinity of Northern Valley Yokut territory, and the surrounding area is known to contain numerous archeological and historical resources. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. E. Geology, Soils and Minerals: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.5 (pages 3.5-1 to 3.5-22) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to expansive soil and liquefaction, as well as paleontological resources. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.6 (pages 3.6-1 to 3.6-40) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur during operation and the implementation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 11 of 15 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.7 (pages 3.7-1 to 3.5-24) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to hazardous material storage, use, and release sites. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. H. Hydrology and Water Quality: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.8 (pages 3.8-1 to 3.8-37) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to land disturbance, creation of impervious surfaces, and/or release or discharge of pollutants to groundwater or regional waters. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. I. Noise: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.10 (pages 3.10-1 to 3.10-28) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. J. Transportation and Traffic: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.13 (pages 3.13-1 to 3.13-54) and in the Final EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. K. Utilities: Discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.14 (pages 3.14-1 to 3.14-26) and in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to exceeding the capacity of on-site utility systems, including water and wastewater. However, all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The CEQA Findings provide a summary of the environmental impacts. All mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. VIII. STAFF DISCUSSION A. Economic Development: Byon Airport currently operates at an annual net deficit. In order to develop economically beneficial uses on the airport, development intensities would be increased to a level more consistent with current California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidance. In addition, by de-coupling the noise and safety criteria, a greater range of industrial and commercial uses could be allowed at the airport. This approach would also create consistency with Buchanan Field, which does not use composite compatibility zones. The proposed project would help implement General Plan Goal 5-Q, to encourage the development and operation of two general purpose public airports in the county, by providing for the economic development and financial self-sufficiency of Byron Airport. The General Plan policies regarding the airport would be amended to clarify that compatible non-aviation uses would be allowed on airport property. General Plan Policy 5-66 would be amended to specify that commercial or industrial development would be allowed on-airport if it is consistent with the ALUCP and the Byron Airport Master Plan. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 12 of 15 The P-1 district for Byron Airport would also be revised to identify the land use categories used in the ALUCP: aviation, non-aviation, low intensity, and habitat management. Additional land uses that could be allowed within the aviation and non-aviation areas would be identified, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 2.6, Proposed Land Uses and Zoning. The P-1 modification would specify that all proposed land uses must be reviewed by County staff for consistency with the current ALUCP. The zoning would also implement the ALUCP and General Plan standards for compatible land use, including height restrictions. Allowing for more land uses and increased intensities within the Byron Airport planning area would increase revenue for the airport and County and, with the types of aviation-related uses included in the project, potentially make Contra Costa County a hub of aviation technology and innovation in the Bay Area. Not only would increasing the economic viability of Byron Airport help it operate in a financially beneficial way to the County, but it would also help support the Jobs/Housing balance in East Contra Costa County. According to General Plan Table 2-4, the projected jobs/hosing ratio for East County in 2020 was 0.45 jobs per resident. This low ratio results in a large population of East County residents commuting out of the county for work, rather than commuting locally. This mass exodus from East County communities creates significant traffic along local roads and highways, among other negative impacts to the environment and quality of life. Providing new, high quality economic opportunities for residents in East County would help make a dent in the jobs/housing ratio, especially with the rapidly increasing population growth in East County. B. Transportation and Traffic: As discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.13 (pages 3.13-1 to 3.13-54) and in the Final EIR, significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by operation of individual development projects under the scope of this development program. The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per employee for the project is 21.2, compared to 14.0 for the county and 14.9 for the Bay Area. A slight decrease in VMT per employee under the “with project” conditions compared to the “without project” conditions indicates that the project would improve VMT efficiency in the region. However, it should be noted that the VMT “significance of impact” threshold requires comparison of the project VMT with the regional average (i.e., Bay Area Average), and not a comparison of with project and no project scenarios. The County threshold for Employment Projects (office, industrial, and institutional projects) is that the project VMT should be 15% below Bay Area average commute VMT per employee (i.e., home-based work VMT per employee). The project’s VMT per employee (21.2) is higher than the Bay Area VMT per employee (14.9). To meet the threshold of 15% below Bay Area Average and have a less than significant VMT impact, the HBW VMT per employee for the project should be approximately 12.7, which would require a 40% reduction. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified this as a potentially significant VMT impact. Transportation demand management strategies and mitigation measures that can potentially achieve VMT reductions are provided in Draft EIR Section 3.13.5 and the MMRP. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 13 of 15 The project also has the potential to increase the volume of truck traffic on the roadway network to serve warehousing and light industrial development. Although regional roadways, such as Byron Highway and State Route (SR-4), already safely handle significant volumes of truck traffic, the rural roads providing access to Byron Airport may not support the increase in truck traffic. Existing traffic volumes can be handled on these roads, but they may be inadequate for increased volumes of project-related traffic, including increased truck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR identified this as a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the County or future developers would construct the street improvements along Armstrong Road, Byron Hot Springs Road, and Holey Road described in MM-TRAF-9 to reduce access impacts related to heavy truck traffic. Finally, due to the potential for the proposed project to add traffic to Caltrans facilities within the traffic impact study area, the Caltrans Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps and Mountain House Parkway/I-205 eastbound ramps were analyzed for queuing impacts. When comparing the Future Year 2040 scenario with the addition of the proposed project, queueing is forecasted to increase for all vehicle movements during the AM peak hour at the Mountain House Parkway/I-205 westbound ramps; vehicle traffic would continue to spill into the mainline lanes in Future Year 2040 “no Project” and “plus Project” conditions. No current funded or planned improvements are identified at the I-205 westbound ramps with Mountain House Parkway. The SR-239 Feasibility Study Final Report identifies potential alignments for the proposed SR-239 corridor between SR-4 to the north and I-580 and/or I-205 to the south, which would reduce traffic volumes on I-580, Vasco Road, and Byron Highway (SR-239 is a proposed roadway connecting Vasco Road in Contra Costa County to the I-580/I-205 interchange in Alameda County or I-205 in San Joaquin County). As such, shifts in regional traffic patterns could also reduce congestion and queuing at the Mountain House Parkway/I- 205 westbound ramps. However, as the SR-239 Feasibility Study does not identify specific improvements, nor are specific improvements planned or funded in the area, hazards related to queuing at this off-ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. C. Utilities: The project site is not connected to public water services; instead, the airport relies on existing on-site water wells and a 4,000-gallon on-site water tank for its domestic, non-potable water. Bottled water is used for drinking water. Development of the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the existing system, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Currently, the well serving the airport property is insufficient to serve additional project development. This impact is potentially significant. According to the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed project, at the programmatic level of analysis, sufficient water supplies are available to serve its water demand under normal and dry conditions, including existing and planned land uses, over the 20-year projection period (Draft EIR Appendix I). This would be accomplished through the use of one or more of the proposed options, including on-site expansion of wells for extraction and treatment of additional groundwater, importation of treated water from Discovery Bay Community Services District (CSD), or importation and on-site treatment of additional water from Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID). However, as development under the proposed project proceeds, each of the potential supplies CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 14 of 15 considered would require additional feasibility analysis to determine the actual potential for project implementation, and would require appropriate agreements (e.g., will-serve letter) from the off-site suppliers before any development requiring potable water could be permitted. This process is incorporated into MM-UTIL-1. Connection to either Discovery Bay CSD or BBID may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of groundwater systems would be the ideal method. The project site is not connected to public sewer services; instead, the airport relies on an existing on-site septic system and leach field for its sanitary service. The 2013 Byron Airport Infrastructure Study considered two potential wastewater generation rates for bulk warehousing and industrial development: the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s Collection System Master Plan rate of 1,000 gallon per day (gpd) per gross acre, and the City of Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet of building square footage. The Infrastructure Study used the Oakland rate of 25 gpd per 1,000 square feet, resulting in an estimated 96,000 gpd build-out demand. The development assumptions in the Infrastructure Study are greater than for the proposed project (146.9 acres and 3,840,000 square feet of building space, compared to 70.9 acres and 941,000 square feet of building space for the proposed project). Applying the Oakland rate to the proposed project would result in an estimated wastewater flow of 23,525 gpd. However, the Town of Discovery Bay, which contains the nearest wastewater treatment plant, uses a wastewater generation rate of 2,000 gpd per acre of industrial development and 1,600 gpd per acre of commercial development. Using these flow rates, wastewater flow would be 89,920 gpd for non-aviation uses. MM-UTIL-2 would require implementation of a wastewater system, per the recommendations of the Byron Airport Infrastructure Study (Mead & Hunt 2013), which studied several options for expansion of the on-site sewer system. The options include requiring each new use or development to provide for its own wastewater disposal, in effect distributing wastewater treatment to smaller leach fields throughout the site, or development of centralized treatment though use of an on-site package wastewater treatment plant and establishment of collection pipelines. For an on-site treatment plant, effluent disposal may be accomplished through landscape irrigation if the effluent is treated to a level to meet Title 22 CCR standards. A third option is connection to an existing sewer system: either the Discovery Bay CSD or the Byron Sanitary District. Connection to Discovery Bay would involve off-site construction of a force main and likely modifications to the existing sewage lift station (or a new lift station). Connection to Byron Sanitary District would likely require an expansion of Byron Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment facility. Connection to either Discovery Bay or Byron Sanitary District may also conflict with the County’s Urban Limit Line policy, so on-site expansion of septic systems and leach fields would be the ideal method. The proposed project’s requirements would exceed existing water and wastewater infrastructure, which would have a potentially significant impact without mitigation. The construction impacts associated with expansion of required infrastructure are addressed in the Draft and Final EIR and do not represent new significant impacts. CPC – March 9, 2022 County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 Page 15 of 15 IX. CONCLUSION The record demonstrates that the Byron Airport Development Program warrants approval. The project would not threaten the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; it would improve the economic viability of Byron Airport; it would expand economic opportunities in East County; and most potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission adopt a motion to make the recommendations listed above in Section II. Attachments: 1. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval 3. Existing Maps (Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph) 4. Proposed General Plan Amendment Map 5. Proposed General Plan Policies to be Amended 6. Proposed Rezone Ordinance Map 7. Proposed Site Plan 8. Proposed Permitted and Conditional Land Uses 9. Comments Received During CEQA Public Review Period 011 5/10/63 POR. SECS. 27 & 28 & ALL OF SECS. 21 & 22 T1S R3E M.D.B.&M. 132PM14 10P.M.50 11-3-69 2-24-883-3 P.B. 2 P.B. 5 P.B. 03 1"=1000' Fm. 117-20-22 & 29-31 ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE1 1 349.75S01°05'04"E4.76 S89°19'56"E S1°54'11"E 106.82 S8°25'22"E 44.06 NO SCALE DETAIL PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT 1- 2- 43L.S.M.45 7-15-66 02 40 47 44 05 51 31 37 21 13 12 34 33 17 43 2 2 2 2 3 3 33 1 1 11 22222121 21 28 27 22 190.564Ac 158Ac 40.26Ac 13.67Ac 15.45Ac 2.0Ac 80.Ac 011 N89°33'22"W 1577.25 6 16 .4 9 N3 9 °4 6 '2 5 "E R=1590-982.68528.45 337.77 462.03 252.95 N62°56'47"E S63°17'04"W -714.98-866.22 R=1420R=1580 462.58 415.74 48.73 S26°23'13"ES63°36'47"W1 2 5 235.57 212.78 R=1600-426.67337.08N30°50'23"ER=1400486.93514.94S11°17'36"W625.72N10°12'52"E503.20S16°57'03"W322.91N24°23'39"E6970.57 N89°19'56"W 378.37200 -799.11R=3080749.51S18°35'59"W950 N89°19'56"W R=2920-757.60377.781055.08S01°54'11"E688.34N02°17'38"W-733.02S89°19'56"EN0°15'E1184.45 S89°19'56"E408.9350.02 227.33176.68 N01°54'11"W 311.841104.81R=14101950209.61 447.35 N61°00'48"E 192.02 S50°58'48"W 177.43 S71°59'40"W 2066.30550N28°15 'E 158.40 215 .82 N10°45 'W 130.68 N17°15 'W 2652.34 N89°53'44"E 2650.22 N89°56'37"E660.92678.45N00°15'40"W40.00Ac 663.14582.70N00°04'41"WN89°48'40"E 2654.80 S89°22'55"W 168.53 198.66 S89°44'48"W 40.64 N89°41'46"W 364.90 R=344.98 23.39 S87°55'51"W 525.22 880.52525.0 555'R=359.26206.40801.26 765' 151.89599.34 N32°01'W882.16880'880'590765'300.4 300.4 290290254.6 N12°24'W335 N0°15'W 501416108.71S89°25'WR=228.67 1320 AP P R O X. L O C. P. G. & E. R/W. 190' 150'To County 73 D 154NTo COUNTY 143 D 494 0 .57Ac .50' To COUNTY - 554 OR 14850' To County 73 D 154 1238N. C 60' R/W BYROW-BETHANY IRRIG.NORTH60' To COUNTY 88 D 38892 D 3882 2 7 OR 2 7 8 2 2 3 OR 2 6 8 (S T ANDARD P ACIFI C CO) 30' R/W227 O R 25 25' To COUNTY 554 OR 148 HOLEY RD.BYRONROADSPRINGSHOTROAD ARMSTRONG"B" "B" "A" "A""B" 21 22 2728 LF E DE R AL E NGI NE E RI NG C O. 669.36 1057.52 594.44 N41°1'W675.16 N7°30'59"W349.75S01°05'04"E4.76 S89°19'56"E 45.15 S1°54'11"E 106.82 S8°25'22"E 44.06 S5°0'14"W N4°10'30"E"A" 124.73 2.87 46.06Ac 1211.01 (T) SEE DETAIL 46 10Ac. E. B. REG.PARK DIST.R/W79.49 48349.75S01°05'04"E161.23 93.24 38.22 36.09 36.8 20 147.41 253.62 60 138.7 151.74 212.94 142.09 201.72 148.04 150' 138.59 108.73288.4536.07 11/7/12 232.41Ac 713.51Ac 101.82Ac 11.669Ac 8.88Ac 99.28 VASCO RD 140.72Ac 50 40.23Ac 484.96 17.54 80.44 643.39743.58LLA 50,51 N89°57'37"E 2646' N89°59'30"E 1990.90 N89°59'30"E 2163.09T 172.19 Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:18,056 Notes0.60.28 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.6 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. General Plan Land Use Designations & ULL City Limits Highways Highways Bay Area General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:18,056 Notes0.60.28 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.6 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Zoning Districts & ULL City Limits Highways Highways Bay Area Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-6 -SD-1 (Slope Density Hillside Development) R-6 -TOV -K (Tree Obstruction and Kensington) R-6, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-6 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-40, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) F-1 (Water Recreational) F-1 -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-2, -BS (Boat Storage Combining District) A-2, -BS -SG (Boat Storage and Solar Energy Generation) A-2 -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2, -FH -SG (Flood Hazard and Solar Energy Generation) A-2 -SD-1 (Slope Density Hillside Development) A-2, -SG (Solar Energy Generation Combining District) A-2 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-3 -BS (Boat Storage Combining District) A-3, -BS -SG (Boat Storage and Solar Energy Generation) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:18,056 Notes0.60.28 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.6 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Aerial & ULL City Limits Highways Highways Bay Area Urban Limit Line World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations Byron Airport Development Program County File #GP12-0003, DP14-3008 & RZ21-3262 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 26, 2022 Site Information Location: 550 Eagle Court, Byron (APN: 001-011-013, 001-011-017, 001-011-033, 001-011- 037, 001-031-023) Size: Byron Airport property consists of 1,427 acres, including 1,307 acres south of Armstrong Road and 120 acres north of Armstrong Road General Plan: Public and Semi -Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Agricultural Lands (AL) Zoning: Byron Airport is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1); the 11.7-acre parcel is zoned Heavy Agricultural District (A -3) Surrounding Area: Mix of agricultural, rural residential, conservation land, and Byron Hot Springs Aerial Photo Background Original Byron Airport Master Plan adopted in 1986 Byron Airport opened in 1994 Airport Master Plan updated in 2005 20-year plan to support aviation activities Identified potential development opportunities on airport property to increase revenue and achieve economic self-sufficiency Current General Plan policies, zoning regulation, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies specific to Byron Airport preclude many of the identified land uses. This proposed project would provide for both additional aviation and new non-aviation development at Byron Airport Aviation: aircraft storage, admin facilities, instructional facilities, fixed base operators, pilot and passenger terminal improvements, cargo facilities, aircraft service, etc. Non-aviation: industrial, commercial, and office uses that benefit from proximity to the airport and regional roadway network, such as warehousing, distribution, light manufacturing, research & development, office space, regional retail, commercial service, and local retail and food service. Objectives Develop airport facilities to support the types of development envisioned in the Airport Master Plan and subsequent airport planning efforts. Achieve economic self-sufficiency of the airport through the development of airport-related land uses. Protect current and future airport operations from incompatible land uses. Provide a streamlined planning framework for future development consistent with the General Plan and the ALUCP. Proposed Project General Plan Amendment: Revise Policies 5-66 and 5-77 Redesignate 11.7-acre parcel from AL to PS Development Plan Modification: Current Development Plan would be modified to permit all new uses either by-right or with approval of a land use permit Also establishes certain development standards, such as maximum building heights, maximum floor area, setbacks, etc. Rezone Rezone 11.7-acre parcel from A-3 to P-1 ALUCP Update: Updated with new policies and maps specific to Byron Airport, which would reflect the 2017 Airport Layout Plan for Byron Airport, the 2005 Byron Airport Master Plan, and guidance set forth in the most recent version of the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Proposed Development Scenario Proposed Site Plan Existing & Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Proposed Rezone Map Environmental Review Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the project and circulated for 60-day public review (July 1, 2021 –August 30, 2021) Correspondence received from the following agencies/organizations: Wilton Rancheria CA Dept. of Conservation –Geologic Energy Management Division Delta Stewardship Council Contra Costa Water District Identified Environmental Impacts: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils/Minerals, GHGs, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Noise, Transportation & Traffic, and Utilities. Staff Review Economic Development Byon Airport currently operates at an annual net deficit Expanded land uses, coupled with coveted air space, could make Byron/Contra Costa County a hub of aviation technology and innovation Help reduce low jobs/housing ratio for East County Transportation & Traffic Project reduces VMT per employee in the region (improves efficiency) Potential increase in truck traffic volume on local rural roads requires roadway improvements along Armstrong Rd., Byron Hot Springs Rd., and Holey Rd. Potential increased queuing impacts to Caltrans facilities at Mountain House Pkwy/I - 205 westbound ramps and eastbound ramps Utilities Existing on-site water (well) and sanitary facilities (septic) insufficient for proposed development Increased capacity of both water and sanitary facilities required prior to any development Staff Recommendation RECOMMEND that the County Board of Supervisors; CERTIFY that the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before Project approval and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; CERTIFY the environmental impact report prepared for the Byron Airport Development Program; ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Project; SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based; ADOPT a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation of an 11.7-acre parcel from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Public and Semi -Public (PS)and to modify the language of General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element Policies 5-66 and 5-77 as described in Section V.B. below (County File #GP12-0003); ADOPT an ordinance rezoning the 11.7-acre parcel to be acquired by the County from A-3 to P-1 (County File #RZ21-3262); ADOPT the findings in support of the Byron Airport Development Program; APPROVE the Development Plan Modification (County File #DP14-3008); APPROVE the conditions of approval for the Byron Airport Development Program; DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Completion with the County Clerk. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Bayview Estates Residential Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2.CERTIFY that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bayview Estates Residential Project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before project approval, and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis. 3.CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bayview Estates Residential Project. 4.ADOPT the attached CEQA findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. 5.SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Street, Martinez, California 94553 is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. 6.DENY the appeal of Burt Kallander and Alma Johnson. 7.ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/139, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the project site from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single-Family Residential High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) (County File No. CDGP04-00013). 8.ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-18, rezoning the project site from Heavy Industrial (H-I) to a Planned Unit District (P-1) (County File No. CDRZ04-03148). 9.APPROVE the Vesting Tentative Map for the project and the associated exceptions to minimum pavement and right-of-way width and detention basin requirements (County File No. CDSD04-08809). 10.APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the project and the associated Tree Permit (County File No. CDDP04-03080). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gary Kupp, (925) 655-2871 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Bayview Estates Residential Project (144 Lots) in Unincorporated Martinez/Vine Hill RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 11.APPROVE the Findings in support of the project. 12.APPROVE the project Conditions of Approval. 13.APPROVE the attached Community Benefits Agreement. 14.APPROVE the Bayview Estates Residential Project. 15.DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional costs associated with the application process. BACKGROUND: This hearing is to consider approving the Bayveiw Estates Residential Project, including a General Plan Amendment (CDGP04-00013), Rezoning (CDRZ04-03148), 144-Lot Major Subdivision (CDSD04-08809), Development Plan (CDDP04-03080), a Tree Permit, Exceptions from provision of Title-9, consider certifiying the EIR for the project and consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's February 23, 2022 approval of the proposed Bayveiw Estates Residential Project vesting tentative map and development plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project sponsor proposes to develop a phased 144-unit residential subdivision on approximately 78.2-acres of vacant land in the Martinez/Vine Hill area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The proposed project includes the following major components on and adjacent to the project site: 1 A Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) for development of up to 144 detached single-family homes and associated new internal roadways on approximately 31.8 acres of the project site; 2. Approximately 42 acres of open space, marshes and undeveloped land, including: a) the preservation of approximately 20.1 acres of the upper hill area shown as “Parcel A” on the VTM; b) the preservation of approximately 19.8 acres of the lower site areas (containing wetlands, coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, open water, and alkali meadow) shown as “Parcel B” on the VTM; c) the development of a new 2.0-acre stormwater treatment basin, in accordance with the County’s C.3 Guidebook, and shown as “Parcel F” on the VTM; 3. Development of an approximately 4.5-acre private neighborhood park in proximity to “Parcel B” and “Parcel F”; 4. A grading permit for onsite grading of approximately 900,000 cubic yards of earth material for residential subdivision development, including substantial grading of the lower hill area and limited grading of the upper hill area in order to balance overall project cut and fill earthwork volumes; 5. Extension of new utility lines to and throughout the project site, and the repair and upgrade of existing off-site utility lines; 6. Improvement of two existing off-site roadways, Central Avenue and Palms Drive, to better accommodate two lanes of moving vehicular traffic to/from the project site; 7. A tree permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees; 8. The project also includes requests for exceptions to Title 9 relating to roadway and detention basin standards. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The Department of Conservation and Development prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project (State Clearinghouse# 2008032074). The project EIR is composed of both a Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR was posted on June 7, 2017 and a public Scoping Meeting was held on July 17, 2017. Both written and oral comments were received during the NOP public comment period and the Scoping Meeting; the comments were responded to in the Draft EIR, which was released for public review on May 13, 2021 with a Notice of Availability. A 45-day comment period for the Draft EIR began on May 13, 2021 through June 28, 2021 and was extended at the request of the public for an additional 2 weeks until July 12, 2021. During the comment period, the County received 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The comment topics included concerns about traffic congestion, views, tree removal, impacts to wildlife, adequacy of emergency services, sanitary and water service, and petroleum pipelines. The County’s responses to the comments received are provided in the Final EIR that has been prepared for certification by the Board of Supervisors. The EIR for the proposed project identified two significant and unavoidable effects related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the project, including: 1. Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. 2. The project with a General Plan amendment would increase the Countywide VMT, resulting in a significant impact for the project. When a public agency determines that a project will have significant and unavoidable effects, Public Resources Code section 21081(b) requires that the public agency make findings of overriding considerations to demonstrate that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects of the project. Accordingly, the County has made the requisite findings of overriding consideration and has found that the potential benefits of the project do in fact outweigh the environmental impacts. The project’s benefits include, Jobs-housing balance, provision of parks and open spaces, new housing inventory, street improvements for Palms Drive and Central Avenue, and upgraded water and sanitary services, and public nuisance abatement of illegal uses of the project site. The County’s findings of overriding consideration are attached to this staff report in the project’s findings and proposed conditions of approval. STAFF ANALYSIS OF PROJECT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Bayview Estates Residential Project is consistent with the General Plan. The project sponsor proposes to develop a 144-lot residential subdivision on approximately 78.3-acres of vacant land. To support the proposed land use and density, the project proposes to amend the existing Contra Costa County General Plan land use map to change the existing Heavy Industry (HI) land use designation to the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)(5.0-7.2 units/net acre) and Open Space (OS) land use designations. The proposed change of the land use designation of the project site from HI to SH is compatible with the contiguous existing residential neighborhood to the north along Palms Drive and Central Avenue, which the General Plan also designates as SH. The SH designation allows between 5.0 and 7.2 units per net acre. 144 detached single-family homes and associated new internal roadways and a neighborhood park will be developed on approximately 36.3 acres, and the remaining acreage will comprise open space, wetlands, and undeveloped land. Subdivision CDSD04-08809, as proposed, includes 144 units on 27.2 net developable acres of the project site. The density range of the SH land use designation in the General Plan is 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, which allows the project site a minimum of 136 units and a maximum of 196 units, which translates to 5.3 units per net acre, and is therefore within the allowable SH density range. Thus, the proposed project with 144 single-family units is consistent with the SH General Plan designation. a) General Plan Policies: The application is subject to the General Plan’s “Policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Area” (policies 3-105 through 3-107). These policies are highlighted below: 3-105. The scenic assets and unstable slopes of the Vine Hill Ridge are to be protected for open space/agricultural use. 3-106. The residential neighborhood east of I-680 shall be buffered from the industrial/landfill-related uses. 3-107. Approximately 40 acres of land south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, between Morello and Pacheco, is designated Agricultural Lands, to encourage the continued operation of the Viano family vineyards and winery. b) Housing Element: The project is also consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element goals and policies. Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods in Contra Costa County. Goal 6. Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the County’s share of regional housing needs. Goal 9. Promote energy efficient retrofits of existing dwellings and exceeding building code requirements in new construction. The project site is listed in the housing site inventory that is maintained by the Housing and Community Improvement Division, as a site suitable for residential development. The project would allow for additional housing opportunities on a vacant underutilized property that may be developed to meet the housing demands and needs of the County and region. The development of 144 market-rate units on the property is expected to contribute towards meeting the County’s future 6th Cycle Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the planning period from 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA of 7,610 housing units as determined by ABAG/MTC as the unincorporated County’s fair share of development towards the regional housing need. The subject property is listed in the current 5th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory as available land for the potential development of housing. The total number of market rate units that the County is responsible for development is 3,133, and this project would provide a significant contribution towards meeting that goal. c) Noise Element: The General Plan Noise Element includes the following goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project: Goal 11-A. To improve the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful effects of noise for existing and future residents and for all land uses. Goal 11-C. To ensure that new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. Policy 11-1. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise levels shown in the future noise contour maps, should be used by the County as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of “noise sensitive” projects in potentially noisy areas. Policy 11-8. Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning hours. The Community Noise Exposure Levels on Figure 11-6 of the General Plan Noise Element show that levels of 60 dB or less are normally acceptable and 70 dB or less are conditionally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Due to the proximity of Interstate 680 immediately to the east of the project site and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor on the southern boundary, future noise levels on the project site would exceed the 60 dB normally acceptable level for single-family residents and could result in noise impacts on project residents. Modern construction materials and design techniques generally mitigate such “environment-on-project” impacts to non-significant levels; therefore, the new residences should not experience excessive noise issues. With respect to project construction, the project EIR included mitigation measures for avoiding excessive groundborne vibration and construction noise, by requiring the applicant to create and implement a development-specific noise-reduction plan to reduce noise at sensitive receptors along Central Avenue to below 75 dBA Lmax. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-polluting methods to maintain or reduce construction-related noise to threshold levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. Examples of measures that can effectively reduce noise impacts include locating equipment in shielded and/or less noise-sensitive areas, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels, and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other feasible controls could include, but shall not be limited to, fan silencers, enclosures, and mechanical equipment screen walls. In addition, the project has been conditioned to limit construction activities to daytime hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The aforementioned development-specific noise-reduction plan for attenuating construction-related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. As conditioned, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Noise Element. d) Transportation and Circulation Element: The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan shows designated arterials and expressways that are part of the County roadway network. Arthur Road is a southwest-northeast oriented collector and extends from Pacheco Boulevard to a residential area north of the project site. West of the project site, the roadway has one travel lane in each direction. The I-680/Arthur Road interchanges provides access to/from points north along I-680. Central Avenue is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. This roadway is maintained by the County between Arthur Road and Darcie Way and becomes an unpaved private road as it extends to the project site and CCCSD Maltby pump station. This road would be widened and paved as part of the project, serving as the main access roadway to the project site. The posted speed limit between Arthur Road and Darcie Way is 25 miles-per hour and has a suggested speed limit of 5 miles-per-hour on the privately owned segment. Central Avenue currently is not a through street and would serve as a main access roadway to the project site. Palms Drive is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. The surface pavement conditions are poor with uneven and missing pavement. The road is not a through street and would be extended to the project site as a secondary access. The speed limit is not posted. Analysis in the project EIR indicates that the project’s projected trip generation of 1,360 additional daily trips with 107 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 143 PM peak hour trips would increase traffic volumes on residential roadway segments near the project site resulting in obstacles (or hazards) for project vehicle traffic. Therefore, in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project has been conditioned to mitigate these impacts by providing even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) to improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles (or hazards). The project EIR did not find that the project’s traffic volumes would have any substantial congestive effect on the area arterials. The project EIR did identify that the project would have significant impacts on VMT (“Vehicle Miles Traveled”) for the project. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(a) states that VMT “refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” These impacts were analyzed in the EIR based on the project’s effect on VMT and its effects on the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel, and it was found that the total Home-Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, and that the cumulative Countywide VMT would also increase as a result of the project. These VMT impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the EIR. Notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable level of the project’s impacts on VMT, the project has nonetheless been conditioned to mitigate these impacts the maximum extent feasible by requiring prior to issuance of building permits for the project applicant to develop a transportation and parking demand management plan (TDM). The applicant shall submit the TDM program to the County Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval. The TDM program shall identify trip reduction strategies as well as mechanisms for funding and overseeing the delivery of trip reduction programs and strategies. The TDM program shall be designed to achieve the trip reduction, as required to reduce the VMT per resident from 20.6 to 16.5, to the extent feasible, consistent with a 20 percent reduction in the near-term. Thus, the project would be consistent with General Plan transportation policies. e) Open Space Element: The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains goals and policies pertinent to the preservation and management of open spaces within the County. Approximately 44.5 acres of the 78.3-acre project site will be designated open space, natural wetlands, and park areas. Therefore, the project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Open Space Element. Goal 9-A. To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic, cultural/historic, and recreational resource lands of the county. Goal 9-B. To conserve the open space and natural resources of the county through control of the direction, extent, and timing of urban growth. Goal 9-C. To achieve a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the county now and for the future. Policy 9-1. Permanent open space shall be provided within the county for a variety of open space uses. Policy 9-2. Historic and scenic features, watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced. Policy 9-13. Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use objective in the county, as a method of promoting high scenic quality, for air quality maintenance, and to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities of all residents. Policy 9-21. Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with natural contours to avoid excessive grading. REZONE / ZONING CONSISTENCY The project site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial District (H-I), which allows heavy industrial manufacturing uses of all kinds, including, but not limited to, lumber, steel, chemicals, explosives, fertilizers, gas, rubber, paper, cement, sugar, and all other industrial or manufacturing products including the processing of petroleum and the manufacturing of petroleum products (i.e. crude oil refinery). No such industrial uses, or other uses of any kind, exist on the subject property which is entirely vacant land. The proposed 144-lot Bay View Estates Residential Project is incompatible with the current heavy industrial zoning designation. In order to implement the subdivision, the project includes an application to rezone the subject property (File# CDRZ04-03148) from Heavy Industrial District (H-I) to the Bay View Estates Planned Unit District (P-1). The P-1 zoning designation will allow single-family homes while setting aside land for hillside open space, storm drainage management, a neighborhood park, and protected wetlands. Compared to the largely unrestricted development standards of the Heavy Industrial District, the proposed P-1 district would have reduced lot area, lot width, lot depth, and building height requirements. The proposed development standards are cited in condition of approval #89. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING On February 23, 2022, the project was heard by the County Planning Commission (CPC). The CPC opened the hearing, received testimony from the public and closed the hearing. Comments heard during the CPC hearing included traffic and emergency access concerns. Similar comments were also previously addressed and responded to in the project EIR. The CPC, with a (6-1) motion, approved the Vesting Tentative Map (County File# CDSD04-08809) and recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the project. The CPC also certified the project EIR and recommended that the Board of Supervisors also certify the EIR. There was a 10-day appeal period for the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, during which time, one appeal was filed with the County. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION On March 7, 2022, Burt Kallander and Alma Johnson filed a joint appeal (attached) of the Planning Commission's February 23, 2022 decision to approve the Vesting Tentative Map for the project. Enumerated below are the appeal points and staff responses. Appeal Subject #1 The appellants objected to the remote hearing format, stating that Zoom meetings limit free speech because of technical limitations and the inability of attendees to interact in-person on the same premises. Staff Response #1: The remote hearing was held in conformance with all public hearing and Brown Act requirements. Members of the public were provided the appropriate opportunity to speak on the project applications and were not restricted in their comments. All public comments were heard and considered by the Planning Commission. Appeal Subject #2 The appellants assert that traffic volumes and impacts on Palms Drive were not adequately addressed during project review. Staff Response #2: The project will be accessed by both Palms Drive and Centra Avenue. Central Avenue would be the main access roadway to the project site, and Palms Drive would be a secondary access. Palms Drive is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. The road is not a through street and would be extended to the project site as a secondary access. Traffic volumes were analyzed and it was determined that the project would increase traffic on Palms Drive. Palms Drive could carry an additional 1,360 daily vehicles generated by the project if Central Avenue between Darcie Way and the project site were to remain privately owned. The poor pavement conditions and narrow travel-way widths on Palms Drive and the private ownership and unpaved condition on Central Avenue represent obstacles or hazards for project vehicle traffic using Palms Drive and Central Avenue. The project EIR determined that if Central Avenue remains private, a single public access point on Palms Drive would still operate well for general traffic use when it is improved to better accommodate two-way traffic movements. The EIR also provided mitigation measures that will reduce traffic impacts on Palms Drive to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure TRF-4 incorporates County requirements and design standards to provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) that will improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles or hazards. Appeal Subject #3 The appellants state concerns regarding the adequacy of emergency access to the site. Staff Response #3: The project would correct existing life-safety deficiencies due to non-compliant emergency vehicle access (EVA), based on requirements pursuant to the California Fire Code (Fire Code) as amended and adopted by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Fire District). Currently, Arthur Road is the only road to this Vine Hill neighborhood with over 400 existing homes. The Fire Code requires two separate fire apparatus access roads. The project would provide a secondary EVA from the south side of the project site to meet code requirements. Currently, Arthur Road extends into the Vine Hill neighborhood with Central Avenue and Palms Drive branching off Arthur Road. Both Central Avenue and Palms Drive dead end at the project site. These dead-end roads exceed the maximum code-prescribed length without a code-prescribed turnaround. The project would extend both Centra Avenue and Palms Drive into the project site and provide connection between the two roads, as well as provide code-prescribed turnarounds for all in-tract dead-end roads, all to Fire Code requirements. Currently, segments of the existing Palms Drive have pavement width of less than 20’, and segments of both Centra Avenue and Palms Drive have damaged and missing pavement. Fire Code requires a minimum clear width of 20’ with pavement structural section sufficient to sustain fire truck wheel loads. The project would repair and replace existing deficient pavement to meet Fire Code requirements and, where open space exists, provide for homes with sprinklers and other fire-safety improvements. Accordingly, by improving Central Avenue and Palms Drive and turning both streets into through streets, by providing a third access road into the neighborhood, and by replacing open space with residential development equipped with sprinklers, the project will provide a greater level of emergency vehicle access than the Fire Code requires,and will improve emergency vehicle access for surrounding developments. It should also be noted that, separately from this project, the adjacent approved Palms 10 subdivision (Tract 8744) would also improve a segment of Palms Drive adjacent to the project site. MODIFICATIONS TO FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEBRUARY 23, 2022 CPC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD FINDINGS Subsequent to the February 23, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, clarifying edits and additions have been made to the project findings. These edits were primarily made to the CEQA findings in order provide updated references to direct the reader to the pertinent sections of the project EIR. No new or substantial project information has been provided that would require public review and comment under CEQA. Similar clarifying edits have been made to other sections of the findings as well. The revisions are reflected in the final findings in support of the project attached to this board order. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Inclusionary Housing At the February 23, 2022 hearing of the Planning Commission, the Commission requested that the applicants provide affordable housing at the site. It is important to note that the effective date of the inclusionary unit requirement was November 23, 2006, and the project applications were deemed complete on October 17, 2006. Because the applications were deemed complete before the effective date of the ordinance, the project is not subject to the County's Affordable Housing Ordinance that requires at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units be constructed and sold as inclusionary units (i.e. units that are required to be sold at an affordable sales price to lower and moderate income households). Staff has engaged the applicant on this issue and the applicant has agreed to provide 5 on-site inclusionary units affordable to moderate income households, or pay an in-lieu fee, as reflected in the following added condition of approval. (Condition #114) Inclusionary Housing (A.) Inclusionary Housing Agreement: Prior to recording the first Final Map or issuance of the first building or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall enter into an Inclusionary Housing Agreement for the on-site development and sale of five (5) inclusionary housing units affordable to moderate income households. Alternatively, the developer may satisfy this condition of approval, in whole or in part, by payment to the County of an in-lieu fee equal to $100,000 per inclusionary housing unit that the developer elects not to develop and sell on-site. (B.) Inclusionary Housing Plan: At least 120 days prior to filing the first Final Map for recordation or submitting an application for the first building or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit to the County an Inclusionary Housing Plan that includes the information identified in County Ordinance Code Section 822-4.414. The Inclusionary Housing Plan shall include whether the developer will satisfy this condition of approval in whole or in part by payment of an in-lieu fee. (C.) Inclusionary Housing Unit Standards: 1. The project is a phased residential development. The Inclusionary Housing Units shall be constructed in proportion to the construction of the market-rate units. The parties agree that the phasing schedule for construction of the Inclusionary Housing Units will be as described in the plan. 2. The Inclusionary Housing Units must be dispersed throughout the residential project. The parties agree that the Inclusionary Housing Units will be located within the residential project as described in the plan. 3. The Inclusionary Housing Units must have access to all on-site amenities that are available to the market-rate units. 4. The construction quality and exterior design of the Inclusionary Housing Units must be comparable to the market-rate units. However, the Inclusionary Housing Units may be smaller in size, developed on smaller lots, and have alternative interior finishes. (D.) Sale of Inclusionary Housing Units: 1. The developer will sell five (5) Inclusionary Housing Units in a condition meeting the reasonable satisfaction of the County and in accordance with the approved Inclusionary Housing Agreement. 2. The project is a phased residential development. The Inclusionary Housing Units shall be made available for sale in proportion to the sale of the market rate units. The developer may revise the phasing with the written consent of the County. 3. The initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit must be at a price that does not exceed the affordable sales price to a buyer that is a moderate-income household. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum affordable sales price may not exceed the appraised value of the unit. 4. The initial sale of an Inclusionary Housing Unit may occur only to a household that meets the following criteria: a) The household is a Moderate Income Household; b) The household has not owned a residence within the previous three years; and c) The household has no more than $250,000 in assets. This amount excludes assets reserved for a down payment and closing costs, assets in retirement savings accounts, and assets in medical savings accounts. 5. Based on the information provided to the developer by the buyers of the Inclusionary Housing Units, the developer or its third-party designee will determine the income-eligibility of each buyer of an Inclusionary Housing Unit prior to permitting the buyer to purchase and occupy the Inclusionary Housing Unit. The developer will submit a completed Income Certification Form to the County not later than 30 days prior to the close of escrow. The developer will retain all records related to income eligibility for at least five years. 6. Developer may independently source qualified buyers for the Inclusionary Housing Units, determine income-eligibility of such buyers, and complete the Income Certification Form, and/or developer may also hire or utilize one or more third party vendors or brokers to source qualified buyers for the Inclusionary Housing Units, determine income-eligibility of such buyers, and complete the Income Certification Form. If necessary, the County agrees to cooperate with such third parties hired by the developer. 7. Prior to the close of escrow for the initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit, Developer shall ensure that the following documentation is entered into and/or obtained: a) Appraisal. Developer shall require the buyer to obtain and deliver to developer a third party appraisal obtained by the buyer in connection with its financing of the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit (or if no appraisal is required, the buyer shall nevertheless obtain a third party appraisal from a third party appraiser who regularly appraises residential real estate in Contra Costa County for institutional lenders), which appraisal shall set forth the market value of the Inclusionary Housing Unit as if the Inclusionary Housing Unit were unencumbered by this Agreement (the "Appraised Market Value"). The Appraised Market Value shall be used in connection with the calculation of amounts payable to the County under the resale restriction and memorialized by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust; b) Resale Restriction. Developer shall ensure that the County and the buyer execute, acknowledge, and deposit into escrow for recordation against the Inclusionary Housing Unit a resale restriction. The resale restriction shall record immediately after the grant deed conveying the Inclusionary Housing Unit and before any deed of trust or other instrument securing any financing to the buyer; c) Promissory Note. Developer shall require the buyer to execute a promissory note in favor of the County that obligates the buyer to pay the County the amount required under Section 822-4.410(b)(3) of the Ordinance. The promissory note will be subject to County's reasonable review and approval; and d) Deed of Trust. Developer shall ensure that the County and the buyer execute, acknowledge, and deposit into escrow for recordation d) Deed of Trust. Developer shall ensure that the County and the buyer execute, acknowledge, and deposit into escrow for recordation against the Inclusionary Housing Unit a deed of trust to secure performance of the buyer's covenants under the resale restriction and payment of the amounts due under the promissory note. The deed of trust shall record immediately after the grant deed conveying the Inclusionary Housing Unit and concurrent with the resale restriction, subordinate only to the lien for the first mortgage loan obtained by the buyer to finance the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit. (E.) Inclusionary Housing Unit Restrictions: 1. In accordance with County Ordinance Code section 822-4.410(b), Inclusionary Housing Units must remain affordable to moderate income households for the term of affordability. Upon the initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit, the developer will cause agreements to be recorded in the official records against the Inclusionary Housing Unit. The agreements will stipulate that the Inclusionary Housing Units are to remain affordable to moderate income households for the term of affordability of not less than 55 years. Each recorded agreement will be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the developer during the term of the resale restriction. 2. The buyer's first mortgage amount may not exceed the amount needed to finance the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit and the buyer's closing costs. The buyer may not refinance any other debt or receive funds at the close of escrow, except to reimburse the buyer for overpayment of estimated buyer closing costs. 3. The initial purchaser of each Inclusionary Housing Unit must agree to occupy the unit as their principal residence for at least three years unless an emergency requires the earlier sale of the unit." The General Plan Amendment findings have also been updated to reflect the voluntary provision by the applicant of inclusionary housing incentives as being in the public interest and are therefore recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors. Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) The applicant has agreed to enter into the attached CBA with the County. The CBA enhances the project's beneficial contributions to the community, which supports the County's findings that the proposed General Plan Amendment will be in the public interest. The following condition of approval has been added by staff: (Condition #110) CBA The applicant has agreed to enter into a Community Benefits Agreement with the County to fund projects benefiting the community near the project. The agreement will detail the timing and amount of the agreed-upon community benefit payments. Prior to filing of the first final map for the project, the applicant shall provide Department of Conservation and Development staff with evidence that the applicant and County have entered into a Community Benefits Agreement." The General Plan Amendment findings have also been updated to reflect the community benefits agreement as being in the public interest and are therefore recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors. Trail Access The applicant has agreed to provide, at the request of the Planning Commission on February 23, 2022, regional and internal trail access as part of the Bayview Estates Residential Project. The following conditions of approval has been added by staff: (Condition #111) Regional Trial Easement. The applicant shall record an easement in favor of the County, or other public agency named by the County, granting public bicycle and pedestrian access on Central Avenue. The purpose is to enable the public to access a potential future connection to the Iron Horse Trail through a roadway and sidewalk that will be maintained by the HOA. The easement shall be granted before the first Final Map is recorded. (Condition #112) Internal Trails. The applicant shall provide internal walking/hiking trail access for Bayview residents for the purpose of accessing the hill within the development for recreational purposes. Hill access trails will be incorporated into the grading design of the drainage/erosion control benches. The applicant shall show the trail access on the grading plans and the plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Division for review prior to approval of site grading permits. Off-Site Street and Sidewalk Improvements The applicant has agreed to provide additional off-site street and sidewalk improvements as part of the Bayview Estates Residential Project. Staff and the appplicant have developed the following condition of approval: (Condition #113) Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements Along Arthur Road Connecting to Las Juntas Elementary . The applicant shall design and construct sidewalk and path improvements and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks along Arthur Road and Karen Lane from the intersection of Arthur Road, Leabig Lane and Palms Drive to and including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School (collectively, “Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements”). A more precise description of the scope of the Enhanced Pedestrian improvements is provided in Attachment A to the conditions of approval for the project. The County will review and approve the project plans to be provided by the applicant. The County will provide the applicant with encroachment permits and all other authorizations necessary for applicant to construct at no charge to the applicant. The applicant will not have to obtain any Right-of-Way, or permits, or any regulatory approvals. Applicant will not have to pay for inspections or secure bonds for these improvements. Applicant will assist the County’s pursuit of any necessary authorizations from Caltrans. The Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 49th home in the project. However, the Director of Conservation and Development may authorize the issuance of additional building permits pending completion of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements if the Director determines, in his or her sole discretion, that the applicant has made and continues to make a good faith effort towards completion of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements and that the delay in completion is not due to fault of the applicant (e.g., delay in County approvals or required Caltrans authorizations). The General Plan Amendment findings have also been updated to reflect that these Off-Street Improvements are in the public interest and are therefore recommended for approval by the Board of Supervisors. Each of the described conditions of approval are reflected in the final conditions of approval for the project, attached to this board order. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not obtain approval of the required General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision, and Development Plan entitlements needed to allow development of the proposed 144-unit subdivision development in the unincorporated Martinez area. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The project comprises a 144-lot subdivision. Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall pay the required fee per lot (upon which a residence is being built) for childcare facility needs in the area, as established by the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the recommendation supports one or more of the following children's outcomes: 1. Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2. Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3. Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; 4. Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5. Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. The project comprises a 144-lot subdivision. Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall pay the required fee per lot (upon which a residence is being built) for childcare facility needs in the area, as established by the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the recommendation supports one or more of the following children's outcomes: 1. Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2. Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3. Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; 4. Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5. Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Doug Chen (Applicants), Burt Kallendar (Appellant), Alma Johnson (Appellant), Edward Reva, No name given; Alexandra; Rafael Martinez. Written commentary (attached) received from: Pamel Mitchell; Collette Jimenez; Nehrzad Hazratizdadeh; Jennifer Brennan. ADOPTED the recommendations with the following alterations and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval: BOS requested correction to Growth Management Finding #4 BOS requested correction to Tentative Map Finding #2 Modification to Conditions of Approval #s 23 & 79 Addition of a Condition to require deed disclosure notifying owners of potential odorous and/or noisy nearby industrial land uses. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/139 Resolution No. 2022-139 Ordinance No. 2022-18 Vesting Tentative Map Development Plan Findings & Conditions of Approval Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) Site Maps General Plan Amendment Map Rezone Map Appeal Letter CPC Staff Report Community Benefits Agreement Presentation Slides MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/1393 Signed Ordinance No. 2022-18 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/139 IN THE MATTER OF Approving a General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013) for the Bayview Estates Residential Project (144 Lots) WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 26, 2022, to consider the Bayview Estates Residential Project, proposed in the unincorporated Martinez area. The project includes the certification of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project; a General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013); a Rezoning Ordinance (County File# CDRZ04-03148); a Vesting Tentative Map (County File# CDSD04-08809); and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File# CDDP04-03080). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the project reclassifies the site's land use designation from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS). WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment (GPA) findings: a) No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) are all allowed; b) Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designation is HI. The proposed designations are SH and OS. SH is an urban designation, while the OS is non-urban, and thus, is consistent with and supports the 65/35 Standard; c) The current iteration of the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions; d) The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map. Open space would increase by approximately 46 acres. The proposed change is consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Martinez/Vine Hill area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. In no way does amending the project’s land use plan interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan; e) Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The proposed plan for 144 single-family homes avoids many of those impacts and has a higher likelihood of being constructed, thus adding to the housing stock and helping to alleviate the housing shortage. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: 1) the project will contribute to the county's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), 2) the provision of new homes is desirable and will assist to improve the balance between housing and jobs, 3) the project will provide approximately 46 acres of openspace, parks, and trails, 4) the project would upgrade water and sewer utilities on the area of the project site, 5) the project will improve street conditions and provide pedestrian facilities on Arthur Road, Palms Avenue, and Centras Avenue, 6) the project will include a $2,000,000 community benefits agreement, and 7) will provide 5 on-site inclusionary units affordable to moderate income households, or pay an in-lieu fee. 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013) to reclassify the land use designation of the subject property from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS), and ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment, County File# CDGP04-00013, as part of the first consolidated General Plan amendment for calendar year 2022, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Gary Kupp, (925) 655-2871 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/139 IN THE MATTER OF Approving a General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013) for the Bayview Estates Residential Project (144 Lots) WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 26, 2022, to consider the Bayview Estates Residential Project, proposed in the unincorporated Martinez area. The project includes the certification of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project; a General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013); a Rezoning Ordinance (County File# CDRZ04-03148); a Vesting Tentative Map (County File# CDSD04-08809); and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File# CDDP04-03080). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the project reclassifies the site's land use designation from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS). WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment (GPA) findings: a) No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) are all allowed; b) Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designation is HI. The proposed designations are SH and OS. SH is an urban designation, while the OS is non-urban, and thus, is consistent with and supports the 65/35 Standard; c) The current iteration of the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions; d) The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map. Open space would increase by approximately 46 acres. The proposed change is consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Martinez/Vine Hill area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. In no way does amending the project’s land use plan interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan; e) Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The proposed plan for 144 single-family homes avoids many of those impacts and has a higher likelihood of being constructed, thus adding to the housing stock and helping to alleviate the housing shortage. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: 1) the project will contribute to the county's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), 2) the provision of new homes is desirable and will assist to improve the balance between housing and jobs, 3) the project will provide approximately 46 acres of openspace, parks, and trails, 4) the project would upgrade water and sewer utilities on the area of the project site, 5) the project will improve street conditions and provide pedestrian facilities on Arthur Road, Palms Avenue, and Centras Avenue, 6) the project will include a $2,000,000 community benefits agreement, and 7) will provide 5 on-site inclusionary units affordable to moderate income households, or pay an in-lieu fee. 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment (County File# CDGP04-00013) to reclassify the land use designation of the subject property from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS), and ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment, County File# CDGP04-00013, as part of the first consolidated General Plan amendment for calendar year 2022, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Gary Kupp, (925) 655-2871 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: §¨¦680 §¨¦680 Arthur RdPalmsDr H-I L-I H-I R-6 H-I -X R-7 A-2 -X R-40 D-1 C P-1 L-I -XR-B R-6 R-6 L-I ORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Pages _______________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended byre-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) TO: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it inthe __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Burgis ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )5. F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Monica Nino, County Administratorand Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chair of the BoardBy__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ04-3148 - Discovery Builders Inc. 2022-18 Vine Hill F-13 RZ04-3148R-6L-IH-I P-1 (Single Family Residential)(Light Industrial)(Heavy Industrial) (Planned Unit) 2022-18 Page 1 of 1 LEGENDNOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPLEGENDLCR/WR/W50' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALEFINISH SWALE CUT AFTERDWELLING CONSTRUCTION.MAINTAIN 1% MIN.BUILDING AREAREAR YARDTYPICAL LOTSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALE5' BENCH ACESSVIA LOT 143NOT TO SCALESECTION I-INOT TO SCALER/WSECTION E-ENOT TO SCALE'C'DRIVETYPICAL LOTSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALEGENERAL NOTESLAND USE NOTES"BAYVIEW"BAYVIEW - C.C. COUNTY - TENTATIVE MAP - SUB 8809 - 09-25-202015' SPILLWAYNOT TO SCALE15'20'20'BERMBERMLC44' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALER/WR/WBooklet Pg 2 Booklet Pg 3 Booklet Pg 4 Booklet Pg 5 Booklet Pg 6 Booklet Pg 1 LEGENDNOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPLEGENDLCR/WR/W50' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALEFINISH SWALE CUT AFTERDWELLING CONSTRUCTION.MAINTAIN 1% MIN.BUILDING AREAREAR YARDTYPICAL LOTSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALE5' BENCH ACESSVIA LOT 143NOT TO SCALESECTION I-INOT TO SCALER/WSECTION E-ENOT TO SCALE'C'DRIVETYPICAL LOTSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALEGENERAL NOTESLAND USE NOTES"BAYVIEW"BAYVIEW - C.C. COUNTY - TENTATIVE MAP - SUB 8809 - 09-25-202015' SPILLWAYNOT TO SCALE15'20'20'BERMBERMLC44' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALER/WR/WBooklet Pg 2 Booklet Pg 3 Booklet Pg 4 Booklet Pg 5 Booklet Pg 6 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESCOVERSHEETCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET OF 11 SHEETS 7/26/21 AS NOTED JW L1 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSUBDIVISION 8809 "BAYVIEW" CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY BUILDERS NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=150' SITE MAP Booklet Pg 7 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESHILL SIDELANDSCAPEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=30' JW L2 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 30' 0 4515 30 60 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 8 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESHILLSIDELANDSCAPEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=30' JW L3 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 30' 0 4515 30 60 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 9 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=30' JW L4 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 30' 0 4515 30 60 OPEN SPACELANDSCAPEPLAN OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 10 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESOPEN SPACELANDSCAPEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=30' JW L5 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 30' 0 4515 30 60 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 11 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESSTREET TREEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=60' JW L6 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 60' 0 9030 60 120 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 12 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESSTREET TREEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=60' JW L7 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 60' 0 9030 60 120 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 13 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESPRODUCTIONTYPICALSLANDSCAPEPLANCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 1"=10' JW L8 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICESSCALE: 1" = 10' 0 155 10 20 OF 11 SHEETS Booklet Pg 14 DISCOVERYBUILDERSCONCORD, CACONTRA COSTACOUNTY, CABAYVIEW ESTATESMWELOCALCULATIONSCLIENT SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATE SCALE DRAWN SHEET 7/26/21 NONE JW L9 REVISIONS BY 2029 Paloma AvenueStockton, CA 95209(209) 954-9065 Officewww.utopianlandscapes.netLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN SERVICES OF 11 SHEETS TYPICAL PLAN 1 TYPICAL PLAN 2 TYPICAL PLAN 3 TYPICAL PLAN 4 TYPICAL PLAN 5 TYPICAL CORNER LOT HILLSIDE OAK TREES SOUTHERN PERIMETER LANDSCAPING Booklet Pg 15 Booklet Pg 16 Booklet Pg 17 BAYVIEW - MASTER PLOTTING PLAN - DRAFT UNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT TO MARTINEZ , CA D ISCOVERYDESIGNGROUP August 6, 2021 TYPICAL MINIMUM SETBACKS TO PL N.T.S. SCALE: 1"=60' SHEET 1 OF 2 COUNT PERCENT PLAN# DISTRIBUTION TABLE 1 SINGLE STORY 2 TWO STORY 3 TWO STORY 4 TWO STORY 5 TWO STORY 144 100% 18 13% 38 26% 32 22% 26 18% 30 21% SEE SH E E T 2 Booklet Pg 18 TYPICAL MINIMUM SETBACKS TO PL N.T.S. SCALE: 1"=60' SHEET 2 OF 2 COUNT PERCENT PLAN# DISTRIBUTION TABLE 1 SINGLE STORY 2 TWO STORY 3 TWO STORY 4 TWO STORY 5 TWO STORY 144 100% 18 13% 38 26% 32 22% 26 18% 30 21% BAYVIEW - MASTER PLOTTING PLAN - DRAFT UNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT TO MARTINEZ , CA D ISCOVERYDESIGNGROUP August 6, 2021 S E E S H E E T 1 Booklet Pg 19 Booklet Pg 20 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASite PlanPlan 1Booklet Pg 21 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAFloor PlanPlan 1Booklet Pg 22 Elevations - 'A'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 1RightRoof Plan 'A' RearLeftBooklet Pg 23 Elevations - 'B'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 1RightRoof Plan 'B' RearLeftBooklet Pg 24 Elevations - 'C'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 1RightRoof Plan 'C' RearLeftBooklet Pg 25 Booklet Pg 26 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASite PlanPlan 2Booklet Pg 27 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAFirst FloorPlan 2Booklet Pg 28 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASecond FloorPlan 2Booklet Pg 29 Elevations - 'A'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 2RightRoof Plan 'A' RearLeftBooklet Pg 30 Elevations - 'B'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 2RightRoof Plan 'B' RearLeftBooklet Pg 31 Elevations - 'C'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 2RightRoof Plan 'C' RearLeftBooklet Pg 32 Booklet Pg 33 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASite PlanPlan 3Booklet Pg 34 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAFirst FloorPlan 3Booklet Pg 35 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAOpt. Bedroom 5Second FloorPlan 3Booklet Pg 36 Elevations - 'A'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 3RightRoof Plan 'A' RearLeftBooklet Pg 37 Elevations - 'B'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 3RightRoof Plan 'B' RearLeftBooklet Pg 38 Elevations - 'C'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 3RightRoof Plan 'C' RearLeftBooklet Pg 39 Booklet Pg 40 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASite PlanPlan 4Booklet Pg 41 IN / OUTSWINGD a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAFirst FloorPlan 4Booklet Pg 42 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASecond FloorPlan 4Booklet Pg 43 Elevations - 'A'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 4RightRoof Plan 'A' RearLeftBooklet Pg 44 Elevations - 'B'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 4RightRoof Plan 'B' RearLeftBooklet Pg 45 Elevations - 'C'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 4RightRoof Plan 'C' RearLeftBooklet Pg 46 Booklet Pg 47 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASite PlanPlan 5Booklet Pg 48 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAFirst FloorPlan 5Booklet Pg 49 D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CASecond FloorPlan 5Optional Bedroom 5Booklet Pg 50 Elevations - 'A'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 5RightRoof Plan 'A' RearLeftBooklet Pg 51 Elevations - 'B'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 5RightRoof Plan 'B' RearLeftBooklet Pg 52 Elevations - 'C'D a t e 08/03/2021DISCOVERYDESIGNGROUPUNINCORPORATED AREA ADJACENT Discovery Builders Inc.BAYVIEWTO MARTINEZ, CAPlan 5RightRoof Plan 'C' RearLeftBooklet Pg 53 Booklet Pg 54 Booklet Pg 55 Booklet Pg 56 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE BAYVIEW ESTATES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; DISCOVERY BUILDERS (APPLICANT & OWNER); COUNTY FILE #s CDGP04-00013, CDRZ04-03148, CDSD04-08809, CDDP04-03080 A. Growth Management Findings 1. Traffic: The project site is accessed from Palms Drive, an existing private paved road that links to Arthur Road, a public street 1400 feet to the west; and Central Avenue, which is a mostly paved public street, but terminates to a private gravel road some 475 feet west of the project site. Both Palms Drive and Central Avenue west of the project site currently provide two-way passage but are generally too narrow to meet current County Public Works standards. Central Avenue is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. This roadway is maintained by the County between Arthur Road and Darcie Way and becomes an unpaved private road as it extends to the project site and CCCSD Maltby pump station. This road would be widened and paved as part of the project, serving as the main access roadway to the project site. The posted speed limit between Arthur Road and Darcie Way is 25 miles-per hour and has a suggested speed limit of 5 miles-per-hour on the privately owned segment. Central Avenue currently is not a through street and would serve as a main access roadway to the project site. Palms Drive is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. The surface pavement conditions are poor with uneven and missing pavement. The road is not a through street and would be extended to the project site as a secondary access. Off-site road improvements to Palms Drive and Central Avenue are part of the overall project scope. The applicant proposes to improve these off-site roadways to meet the minimum standards necessary to have them accepted by the County as public streets, and to meet Contra Costa Fire Protection District Code standards for emergency vehicle accessibility. Analysis in the project EIR indicates that the project’s projected trip generation of 1,360 additional daily trips with 107 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 143 PM peak hour trips would increase traffic volumes on residential roadway segments near the project site resulting in obstacles (or hazards) for project vehicle traffic. Therefore, in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project has been conditioned to mitigate these impacts by providing even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) to improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles (or hazards). The Board of Supervisors incorporates by reference the findings regarding emergency access and roadways in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section H(6)(B) of these Findings). The project EIR did Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 2 of 98 not find that the project’s traffic volumes would have any substantial congestive effect on the area roadway arterials, and the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E to the Draft EIR) found that any cumulative congestion effects of the project in combination with planned local and regional growth is addressed by the applicant's payment of the County's traffic impact fees. 2. Water: With 144 new residential units, the project would increase demand for potable water. The project would be served by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Since the site is undeveloped, the current water demand is zero. For purposes of sizing water distribution infrastructure and estimating potential effects to the CCWD’s water supplies, the estimated water demand rate is 148 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is the 2020 target in CCWD’s 2015 UWMP. This estimated demand rate is conservative compared to CCWD’s 2015 actual demand rate of 114 GPCD. The project’s 356 new residents would result in a total water demand of 59 AFY. While this water demand would be an increase over no existing water usage, it would be offset by the anticipated water demand if the site were to be developed based on its current land use designation of Heavy Industrial District. The CCWD holds entitlements to approximately 213,700 AFY of water. As of 2015, CCWD’s demand was 119,420 AFY. The project, at approximately 59 AFY, would represent a 0.05 percent increase over 2015 demand levels. While water demand would increase as a result of the project, based on the CCWD’s available water rights and the current level of water demand, it is expected that existing water supplies would be sufficient to serve the project, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. Also as noted above, the CCWD’s water supply reliability goal is to meet 100 percent of demand in normal years and a minimum of 85 percent of demand during a drought. Any potential supply shortfalls experienced during dry year conditions will be met through a combination of a short-term conservation program or short-term water purchases (Draft EIR pp. 4.14-12; 2015 CCWD Urban Water Management Plan, p. 1-13; 2020 CCWD Urban Water Management Plan, p. 1-11). Consistent with the CCWD’s Future Water Supply Study, a planned purchase of up to 1,700 AF of additional water supply by 2040 is necessary to meet the water supply reliability goal. Although the project would add to demand in drought years, the increase of the project’s demand on CCWD’s water supply is negligible and would not be considerable. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD) has reviewed the preliminary subdivision and approved of the proposed subdivision as well as the request to annex the project site to be wholly within the MVSD sphere of influence, subject to the approval by the LAFCO. MVSD issued a “Will Serve” Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 3 of 98 letter confirming its plan to provide wastewater utility service to the project site. MVSD is in the process of preparing an updated capacity study that will include the Bayview project site; the study is expected to be available sometime in 2022. Final project improvement plans will have to be prepared in accordance with current MVSD standards and will be evaluated against the updated capacity study and models. In light of the Will Serve letter issued by MVSD, it is presumed that the District has sufficient existing capacity to serve the project’s anticipated wastewater demands, and the project would not result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. In-tract wastewater will be conveyed via gravity sewer lines to the low point at northeast corner of the development. Sewer will be pumped via a private pump station and through a force main to the existing sewer in Palms Drive. 4. Fire Protection: According to County General Plan, Fire Protection Policies, the Fire Department shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station, and new development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services; thus, the project will pay its fair share for fire protection services. The project site is located within the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD), one of seven fire protection districts serving the unincorporated County area. The CCCFPD provides fire and emergency medical services to a population of nearly one million people in a 304 square-mile District area, and through mutual aid, in and around the 19 cities and unincorporated communities of Contra Costa County. including nine cities and unincorporated areas with 24 fire stations, as well as full service to business and industry, including several petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing plants. The CCCFPD’s service area covers the majority of the central part of the County and extends from Oakley on the east, Moraga on the south and the cities of Richmond, Pinole and Hercules on the west. The northern limits of the service area are defined by the shorelines of Suisun Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers (Contra Costa County, 2020b. The Division maintains 24 fully staffed stations and more than 400 employees, and 2 more stations staffed with paid-on-call Reserve Firefighters. Minimum daily staffing is 77 personnel. The 24 on-duty companies are trained and regularly cross-staff numerous specialty response units including 18 wildland fire apparatus, 3 rescue units, a trench rescue unit, a fire rescue boat, and a mobile breathing air support unit (CCCFPD, 2020). Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 4 of 98 The CCCFPD provides fire protection and emergency medical aid to the project site from Fire Stations 9, 13 and 14. Station 9 is located approximately 3 miles south of the project site at 209 Center Avenue in Pacheco. Station 13 is located at 251 Church Street in Martinez, and Station 14 is located at 521 Jones Street in Martinez. Furthermore, the project applicant shall equip all dwelling units with residential automatic fire sprinkler systems, complying with the 2019 California Fire Code as adopted by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, or otherwise most current edition, subject to the review and approval of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 5. Public Protection: The project site would be generally served by Muir Station, located at 1980 Muir Road in Martinez, approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site, although calls for Sheriff response may be responded to by personnel in other Stations within the County. The addition of 144 new residential dwelling units would result in approximately 356 new residents or approximately 0.04 percent of the Sheriff’s Office countywide service population. Given existing resources available to service the new development and population on the project site, it is not anticipated that the project would result in the need for new physical facilities. 6. Parks and Recreation: The County General Plan Growth Management Element requires new development to provide 3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 people. The project would result in approximately 356 new residents, which could increase the demand for existing parks and recreational facilities. The project includes development of an approximately 4.5-acre private neighborhood park on the project site, adjacent to the existing freshwater pond and marsh areas on the site. The proposed park would offer passive activities; no sport courts, sports fields, or programmed event features would be provided. Bicycle racks would be provided; however, no vehicular parking is proposed. Moreover, numerous existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities exist near the project site. Close to the project site are the multi-purpose trail loop in the Waterbird Regional Preserve (0.5 miles away), the 5-acre Morello Park (one mile southwest), the 2-acre Holiday Highlands Park (1.1 miles southwest), and the 4.5-acre Mountain View Park 1.9 acres west – all of which have a wide range of recreation facilities. Because the proposed new neighborhood park would be included as part of the project, and given the existing available facilities, the project would not warrant the construction of additional new facilities off-site. Additionally, the applicant will be paying the current park impact and dedication fees for each of the 144 dwelling units. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 5 of 98 7. Flood Control and Drainage: Runoff from roofs and paved areas on each of the 144 lots and the proposed streets would be collected and conveyed directly, or collected and discharged via the storm drain systems, into the bioretention treatment facility. The orifice within the outflow structure (located within the most downstream pond) would slowly meter outflows. After treatment and hydromodification, outflow from the bioretention area would be directed towards Pacheco Creek. Overflow would exit the bioretention area through an overflow outlet structure and, again, be directed towards Pacheco Creek. There is adequate hydraulic head to allow drainage into, and overflow away from the bioretention area without need for pumps. The discharge pipe from the outlet structure within the lowest pond (located in the future park area) would discharge to a dissipator pad just downstream of the pond to reduce flow energy and then meander its way to Pacheco Creek. The bioretention area as a whole would be sized, designed and constructed according to the criteria set in the most current CCCWP Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. B. General Plan Amendment Findings 1. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the County Urban Limit Line. Project Finding: No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS), are allowed. 2. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designations is Heavy Industry (HI). The proposed designations are Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS). SH is an urban designation, while OS is non-urban. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 6 of 98 Redesignating approximately 44.5 acres from HI to OS will slightly reduce the percentage of land countywide designated for urban uses. 3. Required Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program. Project Finding: The current iteration of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related CCTA resolutions. Analysis of the project’s transportation impacts were conducted consistent with Measure J growth management guidelines. In addition, the project Environmental Impact Report was provided to the CCTA and the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for their review; no comments or objections to the project were received. 4. Required Finding: Following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan will remain internally consistent, as required under Government Code Section 65300.5. Project Finding: The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map. The proposed land use designation changes are consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. Amending the Land Use Element Map as proposed does not interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. 5. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a). Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The proposed plan for 144 new single-family homes will add to the housing stock and help to alleviate the housing shortage in the County. The Housing Element identifies housing quality as an issue with the County's housing market. More than 60 percent of the housing stock in unincorporated areas is more than 30 years old, the age when most homes begin to have major repair or updating needs. (Housing Element, pp. 6-3 to 6-4.) The project will add 144 new dwelling units to the County's Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 7 of 98 housing market. The project will include a mix of single-story and two-story houses ranging from 3-5 bedrooms. These homes would be constructed to modern building codes with enhanced life safety and energy efficiency components, consistent with County policies and goals. Furthermore, the current Heavy Industrial zoning and General Plan designations are no longer practical for the site, since the likelihood of heavy industrial uses being established on the site, which is immediately adjacent to residential uses, is not foreseeable given the steepness of the terrain and the access to the site through the residential areas. Thus, the General Plan Amendment to a residential designation is in the public interest. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: • Jobs-Housing Balance. The Housing Element identifies housing quality as an issue with the County's housing market. More than 60 percent of the housing stock in unincorporated areas is more than 30 years old, the age when most homes begin to have major repair or updating needs. (Housing Element, pp. 6-3 to 6-4.) The project will add 144 new dwelling units to the County's housing market. The project will include a mix of single-story and two-story houses ranging from 3-5 bedrooms. These homes would be constructed to modern building codes with enhanced life safety and energy efficiency components, consistent with County policies and goals. Furthermore, since there is a large housing demand in Contra Costa County, and the San Francisco Bay Area generally, the provision of new homes is desirable and will assist to improve the balance between housing and jobs. The project will provide 144 dwelling units near significant employment centers resulting in public benefits including, reduced congestion, community identity, and alleviation of pressure to develop less desirable sites since the project can be considered and in-fill development. • Contribute to the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The adoption of the GPA is found to be in the public interest as it would allow for additional housing opportunities on a vacant underutilized property that may be developed to meet the housing demands and needs of the County and region. The development of 144 market rate units on the property is expected to contribute towards meeting the County’s future 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA. The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the planning period from 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA of 7,610 housing units as determined by ABAG/MTC as the unincorporated County’s fair share of development Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 8 of 98 towards the regional housing need. The subject property is listed in the current 5th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory as available land for the potential development of housing. The total number of market-rate units that the County is responsible for development is 3,133, and this project would provide a significant contribution towards meeting that goal. • Parks and Open Spaces. The project will limit the effect of new residents on existing public park facilities through construction of an approximately 4.5-acre private neighborhood park (Parcel F). (See Open Space Element, p. 9-20.) The project includes preservation of more than 46 acres (approximately 60% of the total project site) as open space, including hillside meadow open space and wetland, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, open water, and alkali meadow thereby preserving the natural beauty as well as habitat value for plants and wildlife of land that would otherwise be designated for heavy industry use. In doing so the project contributes to achieving a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the county as envisioned in the General Plan. (Open Space Element, p. 9-3 [Goal 9-C].) The presence of a local park for project residents will accommodate inevitable population growth without significantly impacting demand on public park and recreational facilities. The project will also include internal walking/hiking trail access for Bayview residents for the purpose of accessing the hill within the development for recreational purposes. Additionally, the project includes the provision of a recorded easement in favor of the County granting public bicycle and pedestrian access on Central Avenue for the purpose of enabling the public to access a potential future connection to the Iron Horse Trail. • Public Utilities. The project would provide a new 12-inch water transmission main in off-site locations. As part of this configuration, the project would extend Contra Costa Water District's ("CCWD") existing 12-inch transmission main and connect this infrastructure to CCWD’s existing 6-inch water mains in Central Avenue and Palms Drive. This infrastructure and these connections will benefit the over 400 homes in the adjacent Vine Hill neighborhoods in the Vine Hill area and address serious fire flow deficiency (i.e., water flow and pressure needed for fighting fires) identified by CCWD. The typical fire flow, as required by the California Fire Code, for a neighborhood of this size is 1500 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 psi (from two fire hydrants). CCWD has indicated that existing fire flows of 945 gpm at the current Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 9 of 98 terminus of Central Avenue (at the north end of the project site) and 718 gpm at the current terminus of Palm Drive. As a result, the project will correct a serious existing life-safety deficiency by providing fire flows of 2,554 gpm and 1,781 gpm at Central Avenue and Palms Drive, respectively, thereby meeting (or exceeding) minimum required fire flow requirements. Mt. View Sanitary District ("MVSD") is the sanitary sewer service provided for the Vine Hill neighborhoods, and has issued a "Will Serve" letter for the project. The sanitary sewer from the project will connect to the existing MVSD sewer system at the existing terminus of Palms Drive near the north end of the project site. MVSD has indicated that the existing sewer main (old 6” vitrified clay pipe) in Palms Drive is deficient because existing pipe material, size, and/or slope do not meet current MVSD standards. These deficiencies allow for excessive groundwater and stormwater infiltration and inflows, and also have to potential to cause blockages and overflows, which could result in public health issues. The project will replace the Palms Drive sewer main with 8" polyvinyl chloride pipe meeting current MVSD standards. As a result, the new sewer main provided by this project will alleviate the existing sewer problems discussed above. • Emergency Access. The existing Central Avenue and Palms Drive both dead end just before the project site and do not provide for emergency vehicle turnarounds required by the California Fire Code. Additionally, Arthur Road is the only road to this Vine Hill neighborhood with over 400 existing homes. The project will provide a secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) through the south side of the project site, connecting to the proposed in-tract streets, which then connect to existing Central Avenue and Palms Drive. The proposed in-tract streets will also connect Central Avenue and Palms Drive at two locations. As a result, the project will correct an existing life-safety deficiency by providing improved EVA access and circulation through a secondary EVA and Fire Code required emergency vehicle turnarounds. The Board of Supervisors incorporates by reference the findings regarding emergency access and roadways in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section H(6)(B) of these Findings). • Roadways. Central Avenue and Palms Drive provide access to the project site. Central Avenue lacks a continuous sidewalk and its Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 10 of 98 pavement condition over segments not maintained by the County is poor. Palms Drive is generally a private road. It does not have any sidewalk and the pavement over its entire length is poor. Palms Drive at certain locations also does not have a minimum of 20’ of pavement required by code for fire access. The lack of sidewalk is an existing hazard for pedestrians. The poor pavement condition is an existing hazard for motorists, especially emergency vehicles. The project will construct a continuous sidewalk for Central Avenue and Palms Drive and repair the deteriorated pavement and widen the pavement where needed, all to meet current standards and Fire Code. As a result, the improved Central Avenue and Palms Drive will correct the existing road hazards. • Alleviate Public Nuisance. The project site is currently vacant property with a gate at the Central Avenue entrance. Adjacent residents have expressed concern about unauthorized activities at or near the site including dirt bikers trespassing on the vacant site and trash dumping. These are public nuisance concerns. The project will convert unused industrial land into needed housing compatible with the adjacent Vine Hill residential neighborhood. As the project is developed, the existing public nuisance issues will be abated once the currently vacant site becomes occupied by homes. • Community Benefits Agreement. The applicant will enter into a Community Benefits Agreement and will provide up to $2,000,000 in financial support to be used for projects within Contra Costa County, including but not limited to capital, operations and maintenance, inclusionary housing, open space and parks, streets and utilities, flood control, etc. This agreement directly supports the general welfare and interest of the County and its residents through the commitment of applicant-provided funding. • Voluntary Provision of Inclusionary Housing. The project has been conditioned to provide five (5) moderate-income units, or pay an in- lieu fee of $100,000 per unit. • Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements Along Arthur Road Connecting to Las Juntas Elementary. As a condition of the project intended to augment benefits to the neighboring community, the applicant will provide sidewalk and path improvements and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks along Arthur Road and Karen Lane from the intersection of Arthur Road, Leabig Lane and Palms Drive to and Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 11 of 98 including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School. 6. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not exceed the limit on such amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is part of the first consolidated amendment of the Land Use Element for 2022. C. Rezoning Findings 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding: The project site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial District (H- I) and is proposed to be rezoned to Planned Unit District (P-1). The proposed zoning designation (P-1) for the subdivision will be consistent with the new General Plan land use designations of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS). The project sponsor proposes to develop a 144-lot residential subdivision on approximately 78.3-acres of vacant land. To support the proposed land use and density, the project proposes to amend the existing Contra Costa County General Plan land use map to change the existing Heavy Industry (HI) land use designation to the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)(5.0-7.2 units/net acre) and Open Space (OS) land use designations. The proposed change of the land use designation of the project site from HI to SH is compatible with the contiguous existing residential neighborhood to the north along Palms Drive and Central Avenue, which the General Plan also designates as SH. The proposal includes 144 units on 27.2 net developable acres of the project site. The density range of the SH land use designation in the General Plan is 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, which allows the project site a minimum of 136 units and a maximum of 196 units, which translates to 5.3 units per net acre, and is therefore within the allowable SH density range. Thus, the proposed project with 144 single-family units is consistent with the SH General Plan designation. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent district. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 12 of 98 Project Finding: The project is a residential Planned Unit Development P-1 compatible with and generally and substantially based on the standards contained under the R-6 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and it includes open space areas with recreational uses. The project is consistent with the adjacent residential developments immediately north and contiguous with the project site, which are predominately R-6 single-family residential neighborhoods of comparable residential densities. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The project use will provide 144 new housing units that assist in meeting the housing supply needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. D. Findings Required For Approval Of The Tentative Map The Planning Commission made the following required findings to approve the Tentative Map on February 23, 2022. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the following findings. 1. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general plan required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan, which provides 144 residential units with common and open space areas. The project is consistent with the new General Plan land use designations of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) for the project site. The General Plan density range for properties designated by the SH land use designation is 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, which allows the project site a minimum of 136 units and a maximum of 196 units, which translates to 5.3 units per net acre, which is consistent with the allowable SH density range. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the respective Goals and Policies of the County’s General Plan. 2. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 13 of 98 Project Finding: As required by the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Map shall fulfill all applicable county-imposed construction requirements. The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements for access and drainage improvements that have been provided by the Public Works Department as conditions of approval for the project. Additionally, the applicant will also need to comply with any construction/development requirements imposed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, the Building Inspection Division and all applicable building codes, the Environmental Health Division, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District at the time of building permit issuance. These agencies were all solicited for their comments on the proposed subdivision and none has responded indicating an inability to serve and/or meet the demand. The county geologist determined that the site is feasible for construction from a geologic standpoint. On March 7, 2022, two members of the public submitted a joint appeal of the Planning Commission's February 23, 2022 approval of the Tentative Map. The appeal objected to the Planning Commission's characterization of the project's emergency vehicle access and congestion effects. The Board of Supervisors upholds the Planning Commission's required findings to approve the Tentative Map and incorporates by reference Finding 1 of the Growth Management Findings, addressing traffic (section A(1) of these Findings), the findings regarding zoning (section E(3) of these Findings, the findings regarding emergency access and roadways in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (section H(6)(B) of these Findings), and information in the Board of Supervisors' staff report. E. Findings of Approval of P-1 Zoning District and Final Development Plan 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 ½ years off the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Project Finding: (See Project Finding C(1) above.) Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 14 of 98 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: The neighboring residential area consists of single-family residences, and the project will provide 144 residential units, which is consistent with the area. According to the Development Plan, the residences will consist of one or two-story elements with 3-5 bedrooms, and have setbacks similar to the surrounding properties in the area. Accessory dwelling units and secondary dwelling units are not part of the Development Plan. The design of the residences will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Overall, the project is similar to the single-family development established in the surrounding area, although the neighboring residential community has an older, more varied collection of architectural styles. 4. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding: The project site has varying terrain consisting of a steep hill in the northern area of the property, and significant wetland areas that will have to be avoided and preserved. As a result, residential development on the project site involves substantial constraints, and these constraints significantly reduce the buildable portion of the site. Development of the site will involve significant grading of the hillside, as well as installation of substantial infrastructure to minimize possible geotechnical issues related to the grading required to develop 144 residences. In addition, the residential project will need to handle project-related increases in stormwater runoff. F. Tree Permit Findings Required Finding: The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied: 1. Reasonable development of the property will require the removal of up to 30 trees. Replanting of trees is required, including a restitution for the replanted trees. All feasible efforts have been made to retain the maximum number of trees, as well as, to preserve those trees, which are exceptional due to their visual prominence on the site. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 15 of 98 2. Development of this project cannot be reasonably accommodated on other parts of the property due to the size of the project site. G. Findings for Exceptions to Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code for Subdivisions 1. The Public Works Department recommends exceptions to the standards cited in Sections 98-4.002 (Minimum Requirements) and 92-4.012 (Collector Streets) and 92-4.056 (Minor Streets). (1) Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: The proposed Bayview Estates Subdivision is a 78-acre 144-lot single-family detached residential development. It is on steep terrain with a hill on the west side and wetlands on the east side. To minimize the project's environmental impacts by maximizing the preservation of open space (the hill and wetlands), minimizing grading of the hill and grading into wetlands, minimizing the development footprint, and implementing Low Impact Development principles (e.g. minimize impervious surface) per County's C.3 Guidebook, Applicant has reduced the number of lots from 163 in the original project application to 144 in the current application, and reduced the development footprint to 32 acres (i.e. 41% of total project area). The gross density is 1.8 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The net density is 4.5 DU/AC. (2) Required Finding: The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant. Project Finding: Although Applicant could have enlarged the development impact footprint beyond the current 32 acres (and thus required more grading into the hill and wetlands), which would have accommodated more lots and wider streets, Applicant believes that the currently proposed project, with fewer lots and narrower right of way widths, strikes a balance between property rights and protection of environment. (3) Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The proposed 50' R/W for in-tract Central Ave. connects to and is consistent with the off-tract Central Ave., which also has a 50' R/W, near the northwesterly corner of Bayview. The proposed 50' R/W for in-tract Palms Dr. connects to and is consistent with the existing off-tract Palms Dr., which also has a 50' R/W, near the northwesterly corner of Bayview. The Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 16 of 98 expected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each of the in-tract Central Ave. and Palms Dr. is 680 vehicle trips per day (based on 9.44 per single-family dwelling, per Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation, 10th Edition). This ADT estimate is conservatively high since vehicle miles traveled has decreased by approximately 12 percent in California due to COVID (based on Caltrans Performance Measurement System data for August 2019 and August 2020). Regardless of the actual ADT, 36’ pavement width is too wide for any two-lane street with fronting homes. Based on other East Bay communities, residents living on such streets will complain about speeding when the 85th percentile speed reaches 32 mph or higher. Therefore, from a traffic engineering perspective, it is suggested a 34’ pavement width for all through streets within Bayview that are expected to have an ADT of 2,000 or less. However, it is recognized that 36’ pavement width is needed to accommodate 20’ fire access with parking on both sides. Cul-de-sac streets typically don’t have the same speeding issues and can remain at 36’ pavement. On streets that are single loaded such as C Dr., the elimination of parking on one side due to less parking demand and to allow for the down sloping bank away from the street to start sooner is acceptable thus reducing the pavement width to 32’. The proposed 36' pavement width would provide the required fire access of 20' with parking on both sides which matches Contra Costa County standard collector pavement configuration. Given that the proposed R/W width matches existing, the light traffic volume, and adequate fire access, the proposed exception will not be detrimental to public welfare. The proposed 50' R/W for in-tract Minor streets would be consistent with or wider than similar residential streets in the vicinity. The in-tract Minor streets would have lighter traffic volumes than the in-tract Collectors. The proposed 36' pavement width would provide the required fire access of 20' with parking on both sides and be wider than the County Minor Street required pavement configuration. Given that the proposed R/W width is the same as the width for an in-tract Collector, the light traffic volumes, adequate fire access and exceeds County Minor Street pavement width standard, the proposed exception will not be detrimental to public welfare. The proposed 44' R/W for C Dr., a collector, would be narrower than the other two in-tract Collectors (Central Ave. and Palms Dr.). However, C Dr. with no parking on one side would still provide the required fire access of 20'. This stretch is single loaded with homes on only one side and therefore won’t require driveway access or public utility service boxes on the side without the homes which minimize the need to have as much width Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 17 of 98 between the face of curb to the right of way. Given this, the proposed exception will not be detrimental to public welfare. With respect to properties in the vicinity of Bayview, no adjacent residents will need to travel through the Bayview Estates as the project is at the dead- ends of Central Ave. and Palms Dr. Bayview's in-tract streets will have no negative effects on properties in the vicinity. Bayview will in fact enhance fire safety for all residents in the vicinity by extending a 12" watermain from the south, through Bayview, and connecting to the existing waterlines in Central Ave. and Palms Dr. This would enhance fire flow capacity for the existing hydrants and homes in a currently deficient area. 2. The Public Works Department recommends exceptions to the standards cited in Section 914-12.010 pertaining to the requirement for a detention basin to be maintained by a public entity in order to allow for the detention basin in Bayview Estates to be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association or equivalent private entity with property lien authority. (1) Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: The County lacks funding to maintain this detention basin. (2) Required Finding: The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant. Project Finding: The detention basin is integral to the project and is required to in order to comply with County drainage and C.3 requirements. Applicant would not be able to exercise its property rights to develop the property without the detention basin. (3) Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The detention basin is needed to comply with County drainage and C.3 requirements, which requirements are protective of public welfare. H. CEQA FINDINGS In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and having received, reviewed, and considered the environmental impact report (EIR) and other information in the Record of Proceedings, the County adopts the below findings as part of the project approval. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the County also Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 18 of 98 finds that the EIR reflects the County’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. 1. Project Description. The description of the project is described in Chapter 3 of the environmental impact report for the project. Applicant has also entered into a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), attached hereto, and described further in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The County has sole discretion on the use of the CBA funds, including the funding of improvements, which are separate and independent of the Project approval. The Board of Supervisors incorporates by reference Finding 3 of the Findings of Approval of P-1 Zoning District and Final Development Plan regarding the scope of the Project Development Plan. 3. Environmental Impact Report. The project proposes, a General Plan Amendment (GPA), and to rezone a vacant 78.2-acre industrially zoned property for single- family-residential use. The project also includes a phased 144-lot Subdivision including a Vesting Tentative Map, a Final Development Plan for 144 single- family residences, a Tree Permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees, and a grading permit to grade 900,000 cubic yards of earth material. The Department of Conservation and Development determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required for the project. Accordingly, the County prepared an EIR for the project (State Clearinghouse# 2008032074). The project EIR is composed of both a Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Notice of Preparation of the EIR was posted on June 7, 2017 and a public Scoping Meeting was held on July 17, 2017. Both written and oral comments were received during public comment period and the Scoping Meeting; the comments were responded to in the Draft EIR, which was released for public review on May 13, 2021 with a Notice of Availability. A 45-day comment period for the Draft EIR began on May 13, 2021 through June 28, 2021 and extended at the request of the public for an additional 2 weeks until July 12, 2021. During the comment period, the County received 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The comment topics included concerns about traffic congestion, views, tree removal, impacts to wildlife, adequacy of emergency services, sanitary and water service, and petroleum pipelines. The County’s Reponses to the comments received are provided in the Final EIR that has been prepared for the project. The Final EIR also includes County-initiated updates and errata to the Draft EIR. These errata constitute minor text changes to the Draft EIR and occurred in Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Section 4.6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, Section 4.12: Public Services and Recreation, Section 4.13: Transportation and Circulation, and Section 4.14: Utilities and Service Systems (see chapter 4 in Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 19 of 98 the Final EIR). The changes were made primarily to correct grammatical and typographical errors, as well as to improve accuracy and readability of certain passages. The text changes are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, and do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and do not alter any findings in the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission conducted a hearing and certified the EIR for purposes of the tentative map and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 2022. For all potentially significant impacts discussed in these findings, the County finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project approval will reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. For vehicle miles traveled (VMT) effects in particular, the County finds that there are two significant and unavoidable impacts requiring overriding considerations. Therefore, with respect to the aforementioned VMT impacts only, these CEQA Findings contain a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As required by CEQA, the County, concurrent with adopting these CEQA Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, included as Appendix A to the Final EIR, and further incorporated as part of the Condition of Approval for the project. The County finds that this MMRP, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. For each of the environmental topic areas below, cumulative impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR. For all environmental topics discussed in these findings, any impacts, including cumulative impacts, which were determined to have a less than significant effect without mitigation are either not discussed or not discussed at length in these findings, consistent with applicable law. A full discussion and analysis of all environment impacts, including those found to be less than significant, are located in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and the associated facts and conclusions are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant. The County finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project will not have any significant effect on Land Use, Plans and Policies or Population and Housing, as detailed in Chapter 4.9 and Chapter 4.11 of the Draft EIR. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 20 of 98 4. Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less-Than-Significant Levels. For certain environmental topics, the Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could be mitigated to less-than-significant-levels. These topics are Aesthetics (detailed in Chapter 4.1 of the Draft EIR), Air Quality (detailed in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR), Biological Resources (detailed in Chapter 4.3 of the Draft EIR), Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (detailed in Chapter 4.4 of the Draft EIR), Geology and Soils (detailed in Chapter 4.5 of the Draft EIR), Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (detailed in Chapter 4.6 of the Draft EIR), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (detailed in Chapter 4.7 of the Draft EIR), Hydrology and Water Quality (detailed in Chapter 4.8 of the Draft EIR), Noise (detailed in Chapter 4.10 of the Draft EIR), Public Service and Recreation (detailed in Chapter 4.12 of the Draft EIR), Transportation (detailed in Chapter 4.13 of the Draft EIR), and Utilities and Service Systems (detailed in Chapter 4.14 of the Draft EIR). For each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the above listed sections, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project, as mitigation measures, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified, with the exception of two significant and unavoidable Transportation impacts resulting from project VMT, which are discussed in the next section of these findings. Each of the mitigation measures is included as part of the Project's MMRP for the project, included as Appendix A to the Final EIR, and incorporated as part of the Condition of Approval for the Bayview Estates Residential Project. Therefore, the County finds that based upon substantial evidence in the record, mitigations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and that no further mitigation is warranted as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. The County also makes the following findings regarding certain environmental topics and mitigation measures in support of the foregoing: • Aesthetics. The County Board of Supervisors find that there was sufficient analysis of the impacts of the project on scenic vistas and the visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Final EIR, pp. 3-332, 19-6, Draft EIR Chapter 4.1) The views and simulations included in the Draft EIR are accurate and represent a reasonable depiction of impacts from public viewpoints, and constitutes substantial evidence to support the Draft EIR's conclusions. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would not substantially Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 21 of 98 alter the visual character of the site, as viewed from vantage points accessible by the public, and included photos showing the visual character of the project site that were representative of public views, as determined by the County’s professional environmental consultant. (Final EIR, pp. 3-32, 19-9; Draft EIR Figures 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5.) The County finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the project as a whole, including the proposed changes to the existing topography, would not degrade the existing visual quality of the site or surrounding area, nor would it adversely affect a scenic view or valuable community resource. • Biological Resources. The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to Creeping Wildrye Grassland. Moore Biological Consultants observed the grasslands and noted they were of poor quality, having been interspersed with ruderal grasses and subject to a host of disturbances, and this conclusion was peer-reviewed by the County's environmental consulting team and determined to be accurate. Consistent with the Response to Comment No. 2- 6, which is incorporated herein by this reference, the County Board of Supervisors Finds that Mitigation Measure BIO-5a, developed by the County based on the evidence and conducted surveys, and is sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to the creeping Wildrye Grassland. Use of a significantly higher mitigation ratio would have no proportion to the potential impacts of the project. The Draft EIR also evaluates all direct and indirect impacts on biological resources from construction and operation of the project, evaluates cumulative impacts in conjunction with cumulative development in the region, and identifies and discusses feasible mitigation measures for all potentially significant impacts. (Final EIR pp. 3-30, 3-110, 3-132-171; Draft EIR pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-64) The Final EIR adequately addresses, moreover, concerns about biological species and habitat. (See Final EIR at pp. 3-13 to 3-21) The EIR’s analysis and conclusions, which were prepared by the County’s expert consultant, and concurred with by Moore Biological Consultants, determined the project's operation is unlikely to impact burrowing owls, California black rails, California Ridgeway’s rails, or salt-marsh harvest mice, since their presence was not detected on the project site, (Final EIR pp. 3-17; Draft EIR pp. 4.3-19) and none of the species have a high likelihood of occurrence on the project site. (Final EIR pp. 3-17; Draft EIR Appendix D, D-14; March 17, 2021, Biological Assessment, pp. 20) The evidence underlying the Final EIR’s Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 22 of 98 project impact analysis on biological resources is adequate, according to the County's consultants and Moore Biological Consultants; separately and independently, the project's biological analysis was conducted in compliance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation on the subject, incorporated herein by this reference. (See Final EIR at pp. 3-8) Based on the concurrence of multiple experts on biological resources, the conclusions of these consultants, guidance documents from regulatory agencies, and other evidence in the administrative record of proceedings, the County finds the conclusions in the Draft EIR and Final EIR are accurate and supported by substantial evidence. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Draft EIR identifies a potentially significant impact resulting from project development where existing crude oil and natural gas pipelines transect the project site. In analyzing impacts due to accidental upset of crude oil and natural gas pipelines, the Draft EIR includes a geotechnical evaluation (the “Milstone report”) that preliminarily concludes that proposed grading would not damage the pipelines and a risk assessment of gas pipelines (the “Quest Report”), which concludes the ratio of site casualties to societal risk and risk of unintentional release to be substantially less than the significant threshold. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-6, 4.7-15 to 4.7-17, 4.7- 20; Final EIR pp. 3-4) The Milstone and Quest Reports are incorporated herein by this reference. In accordance with this evidence, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires accurate mapping of the location of pipelines prior to commencement of any grading activities and will reduce the risk of damage to any pipelines in the area. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-16 to 4.7-17) Furthermore, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires design-level geotechnical report that would include the engineering analysis for pipeline safety. Both Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 will reduce potential impacts resulting from accidental upset to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-16 to 4.7-17; Final EIR pp. 3-4). As a clarification, Mitigation Measure HAZ- 2 will apply to all pipelines on the project site, and shall be clarified as follows: - Maximum fill heights over all pipelines, including without limitation the Santa Fe Pacific Partners L.P. (SFPP); Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P (KMP); and Crimson-Chevron KLM (KLM) and Chevron pipelines shall not exert a calculated stress of more than what the pipelines can safely Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 23 of 98 tolerate, as determined by a professional engineer in accord with applicable industry standards and safety regulations based on observed pipe material and other factors. • Transportation. Due to the suppressed travel conditions occurring because of the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional intersection counts were not used as a source of data. Instead, Streetlight Data was used to provide a technically robust baseline of traffic volumes for analysis. (Draft EIR, Appendix E pp. 25) Trip generation for the Project was based on data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), land use code 210 (single-family detached housing). As shown in the Draft EIR at Table 4.13-1, the project is estimated to generate 1,360 daily vehicle trip ends (680 inbound and outbound daily vehicle trips), with about 107 trips during a.m. peak hour and 143 trips during the p.m. peak hour. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-6 – 4.13-7) Cameras were not used to estimate existing traffic or predict future traffic. • Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft EIR indicates the Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD) has sufficient existing capacity to serve the project’s anticipated wastewater demands and the project would not result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. (Draft EIR pp. 4.14-15 to 4.14-16; Final EIR pp. 3-59, 6-3 to 3-61, 6-10) This is confirmed by MVSD's issuance of a will-serve letter, that it approved of the proposed subdivision as well as the request to annex the project site to be within the MVSD sphere of influence, subject to the approval by the LAFCO (Final EIR pp. 3-59), as well as two reports: a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring & Hydraulic Modeling Report prepared by Carollo (Final EIR pp. 3-59 to 3-60) and a Sewer Capacity Study conducted by Aliquot (Final EIR pp. 3-59 to 3-61), which are part of the EIR and administrative record and incorporated herein by this reference. These reports and analyses constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that no impacts to any wastewater treatment plant would be expected from the project. 5. Project Alternatives. The County hereby concludes that the Draft EIR and Final EIR set forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that address the significant impacts of the project, so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The County finds that the alternatives identified and described in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, the analyses and determinations of which are incorporated herein by this reference, were considered and further finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 24 of 98 considerations set forth in the EIR and below pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(c). 1) Alternative 1: No Project/ Existing Conditions. Under Alternative 1, the project would not be constructed, and the 78.3-acre property would remain in its existing condition: mostly open and undeveloped land. Alternative 1 would eliminate all project-related impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-3) Full analysis of Alternative 1 can be found in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. The County rejects Alternative 1 because Alternative 1 would fail to achieve project objectives, as it would not maximize the development of new residential projects in the County to help fulfill regional and local (Contra Costa County) planning goals for the development of housing and would not introduce new residential uses in areas near employment centers in the Cities of Martinez, Concord, and Walnut Creek, near existing or planned urban development, and in areas near regional transportation. (Draft EIR pp. 3-4) 2) Alternative 2: Reduced Grading / 50 percent Development. Alternative 2 considers a reduced impact scenario that would develop the land for less intense use. In this scenario, the proposed number of housing units would be reduced by approximately 50 percent to yield a total of 72 new single-family units, which would be reconfigured on the project site, and would result in a 50% reduction in developable area. Alternative 2 would not result in any new impacts not identified with the project, but also would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts identified in the project as impacts are calculated on a per capita basis, as explained in the Draft EIR's Alternatives Chapter. Alternative 2 would avoid potentially significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts identified for the project, however, these impacts are already mitigated to a less than significant level with mitigation measure GHG-1 included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Draft EIR pp. 5-3 to 5-6) Full analysis of Alternative 2 can be found in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. The County rejects Alternative 2 because Alternative 2 would not avoid any identified impacts of the project that are not already mitigated to a less than significant level under the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Moreover, the need for new housing, and the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the construction of only 72 homes. Pursuant to Government Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 25 of 98 Code section 65583, the County has identified the project site as one of the specific sites suitable for residential development to fulfill the County's share of regional housing needs. (Housing Element, pp. 6-71, Table 6-36 [Bayview Estates to provide 144 above moderate homes toward County RHNA allocations]; 2014 Land Inventory Appendix A, p. A-4 and Figure 4) Construction of the project therefore serves important housing policy goals of increasing housing stock of all types, from lower income to above moderate income households, and satisfies the County's specific goal of establishing almost 150 homes on the project site that are necessary to satisfy RHNA allocations. Critical project objectives here concern the maximization of new residential projects to fulfill regional and local planning goals for the development of housing, and to do so near employment centers in the Cities of Martinez, Concord, and Walnut Creek. (Draft EIR pp. 3-4) Failure to meet these objectives also signifies a failure to meet important public policies, including Goal 6 of the County's General Plan Housing Element: "Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the County’s share of regional housing needs." (See also Housing Element Goal 3 and Policy 3.2) Thus, the County rejects Alternative 2 since it would fail to achieve all the project objectives, as it would not achieve the objective of maximizing the development of new residential projects in the County to help fulfill regional and local (Contra Costa County) planning goals for the development of housing. (Draft EIR pp. 3-4) 3) Alternative 3: Reduced Grading/ Light Industrial. Alternative 3 considers development of light industrial uses, rather than residential and open space uses, which would not require a zoning reclassification or a change to the current General Plan land use designation, since light industrial uses are permitted within existing designations on the project site. Alternative 3 would involve a wholly different land use necessitating approximately three on-site employees assumed to reside in the project area, resulting in a relatively low VMT per weekday. Alternative 3 would still be expected to result in a significant and unavoidable project VMT impact, but may avoid the significant and unavoidable contribution to the cumulative VMT impact identified for the project. (Draft EIR pp. 5-6 to 5-9) Full analysis of Alternative 3 can be found in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. The County rejects Alternative 3 because Alternative 3 would fail to achieve project objectives, as it would not maximize the development of new residential projects in the County to help fulfill regional and local (Contra Costa County) planning goals for the development of housing and would not Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 26 of 98 introduce new residential uses in areas near employment centers in the Cities of Martinez, Concord, and Walnut Creek, near existing or planned urban development, and in areas near regional transportation. (Draft EIR pp. 3-4) 4) Commercial, Mixed-Use Alternative. The Commercial, Mixed-Use Alternative would result in fewer homes and fail to meet the project objectives, including the County's specific goal of establishing almost 150 homes on the project site that are necessary to satisfy RHNA allocations. At present, the demand for housing exceeds the demand for commercial uses, and there is the positive jobs balance in the Martinez sphere of influence. Thus, the County rejects the Commercial, Mixed-Use Alternative since it would fail to achieve all the project objectives, as it would not achieve the objective of maximizing the development of new residential projects in the County to help fulfill region al and local (Contra Costa County) planning goals for the development of housing. (DEIR pp. 3-4) This project objective concerns separate and independent planning policies; this alternative is not feasible. 5) Trail Alternative. Trails will be incorporated into the project's grading, and is included in the conditions of approval for the project. The hillside already was intended to include benches for erosion control and drainage along with access, and therefore incorporation of a trail does not substantially alter the nature or scope of grading, and thus environmental impacts would be the same or similar. 6) Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Draft EIR identifies Alternative 3 as the environmental superior alternative because it avoids a significant and unavoidable impact of the project that no other analyzed alternative would avoid (except for the No Project Alternative, which avoids all impacts). As stated above, the County rejects Alternative 3 because Alternative 3 would fail to achieve project objectives. 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The EIR for the proposed project identified two significant and unavoidable effects related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the project, including: 1) Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 27 of 98 2) Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. Contra Costa County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for preparation, review, and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bayview Estates Residential Project. As the lead agency, the County is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which of those impacts are significant, and which impacts can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such impacts to a level of "less than significant." When a public agency determines that a project will have significant and unavoidable effects, Public Resources Code section 21081(b) requires that the public agency make findings of overriding considerations to demonstrate that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects of the project. Accordingly, the County has made the requisite findings of overriding consideration and has found that the potential benefits of the project do in fact outweigh the environmental impacts. CEQA requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. In particular, Public Resources Code section 21081(a) provides that no public agency may approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one more of three findings with respect to each significant effect. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If a lead agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The statement of overriding considerations does not substitute for, and is in addition to, findings required by CEQA Guidelines section 15091. A. Summary of Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 28 of 98 The Final EIR identified two significant and unavoidable effects related to vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") for the project, including: • Impact TRF-3: Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. • Impact C-TRF-8: The project with a General Plan amendment would increase the Countywide VMT, resulting in a significant cumulative impact for the project. The following findings and statement of overriding considerations outlines the specific reasons to support the County's approval of the project. While the positive jobs balance in the Martinez sphere of influence provides opportunities for reduced commute distances for the project residents, the Final EIR discloses that the project's total home-based VMT per resident is 20.6, which is 4.1 VMT per resident greater than 15 percent below the Contra Costa County average for residential uses. The County average rate for residential uses is 19.4 VMT per resident, and therefore the pertinent threshold here is 16.5 VMT per resident. Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Transportation and Parking Demand Management is proposed to reduce the VMT per resident from 20.6 to 16.5 consistent with a 20 percent reduction in the near-term. Nevertheless, the requirement to reduce VMT by 20 percent in the near-term using TDM strategies exceeds the expected level of VMT reduction supported by research, which is approximately 10 percent. (Final EIR pp. 3-29; July 16, 2021 Response to Comments Matrix pp. 12-13) Therefore, the level of VMT reduction associated with TDM measures is unlikely to mitigate the project's impact to a less-than- significant level, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Final EIR also discloses that the change in General Plan designation from Heavy Industry to a Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) would increase VMT by 2,731. This comparison is based on the use of a conservative assumption that heavy industrial uses at the project site would observe a floor area ratio maximum of 0.1, whereas the General Plan allows up to 0.4 FAR for heavy industrial uses. Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Transportation and Parking Demand Management is proposed to reduce the VMT per resident by as much as 10 percent (or about 810 VMT), per the Final EIR. Therefore, the level of VMT reduction associated with TDM measures is unlikely to mitigate the project's Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 29 of 98 impact to a less-than-significant level, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Final DEIR also discloses that an increase in the number of affordable units in the project would not decrease the project’s significant VMT impact. (Final EIR pp. 3-29) Even with the inclusion of Below Market Rate housing, the maximum amount of VMT reduction associated with implementation of TDM strategies available to the project is 10 percent, which is already accomplished by Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Transportation and Parking Demand Management. (Final EIR pp. 3-29; July 16, 2021 Response to Comments Matrix, pp. 13-14) The Final EIR also discloses that participation in a Transportation Management Association or a VMT Banking or Exchange Program to mitigate Project VMT is not feasible. (Final EIR pp. 3-27 to 3-29; July 16, 2021 Response to Comments Matrix, pp. 13) Contra Costa County has no Transportation Management Association, and without such an existing, County-run organization or a County- wide mandate that other developments must participate in such a program, it is it is not viable to require the project to participate in a Transportation Management Association. (Final EIR p. 3-27) CCTA does not currently operate a VMT Banking or Exchange program and is not expected to operate such a program in the near future. (Final EIR pp. 3-29) B. Overriding Considerations As required under Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the County Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the project EIR, all other written materials within the administrative record, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the project EIR, has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such impact, certifies the project EIR, and approves this project. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the County Planning Commission has determined that the significant and unavoidable adverse impact related to project VMT identified above is acceptable due to the following specific considerations in the record, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project. Each of the considerations in the record, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 30 of 98 The project will have the following direct public benefits: Jobs-housing balance. The Housing Element identifies housing quality as an issue with the County's housing market. More than 60 percent of the housing stock in unincorporated areas is more than 30 years old, the age when most homes begin to have major repair or updating needs. (Housing Element, pp. 6-3 to 6-4.) The project will add 144 new dwelling units to the County's housing market. The project will include a mix of single-story and two-story houses ranging from 3-5 bedrooms. These homes would be constructed to modern building codes with enhanced life safety and energy efficiency components, consistent with County policies and goals. Furthermore, since there is a large housing demand in Contra Costa County, and the San Francisco Bay Area generally, the provision of new homes is desirable and will assist to improve the balance between housing and jobs. The project will provide 144 dwelling units near significant employment centers resulting in public benefits including, reduced congestion, community identity, and alleviation of pressure to develop less desirable sites since the project can be considered and in-fill development. • Reduced Congestion: Congestion results in loss of time and productivity, accidents, personal frustration, increase in pollution, adverse community reaction and additional adverse safety impacts due to use of residential streets for commuting purposes. (Transportation and Circulation Element, p. 5-8.) While average VMT for the project would remain above the pertinent threshold, given that certain project residents will have to commute to San Francisco and other distant locations, construction of the project means potentially shorter commute times for a significant portion of the project's residential population and a corresponding reduction in regional highway congestion due to nearby employment centers in Martinez, Walnut Creek and Concord. For example, the project is located in the sphere of influence of the City of Martinez. Major employers in Martinez include, the County, Contra-Costa Regional Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Kaiser Permanente, Shell Oil Products, and the VA Outpatient Clinic. (Housing Element, p. 6-14 [Table 6-6].) • Community Identity: Situating residential development in proximity to employment centers such as Martinez and other locations where there are large employers creates the opportunity for common experiences among project residents, promoting community building and a sense of identity. • Alleviation of Pressure to Develop Less Desirable Sites: Establishment of a residential development in an infill location near a major highway, as well as Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 31 of 98 near job centers, alleviates pressure to accommodate homes for the County's increasing population in less desirable locations, including open space areas where urban development does not presently exist, and which are not located in close proximity to major transportation corridors. Contribute to the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The project would allow for additional housing opportunities on a vacant underutilized property that may be developed to meet the housing demands and needs of the County and region. The development of 144 market rate units on the property is expected to contribute towards meeting the County’s future 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA. The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the planning period from 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA of 7,610 housing units as determined by ABAG/MTC as the unincorporated County’s fair share of development towards the regional housing need. The subject property is listed in the current 5th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory as available land for the potential development of housing. The total number of market-rate units that the County is responsible for development is 3,133, and this project would provide a significant contribution towards meeting that goal. Community Benefits Agreement. The applicant and County agree to enter into a Community Benefits Agreement (“CBA”, see attached), which requires funds to be provided by applicant to the County. County, at its sole discretion, may use these funds for, among other improvements, sidewalk repairs and related pedestrian improvements from the intersection of Arthur Road and Palms Drive and Leabig Lane, to the Las Juntas Elementary School. Said pedestrian improvements are not a part of the project; would occur separately and independently from the project; and are exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations Sections 15301 and 15302 (“Class 1 exemption” and “Class 2 exemption”, respectively), and California Public Resources Code Section 21080.25. Parks and open spaces. The project will limit the effect of new residents on existing public park facilities through construction of an approximately 4.5-acre private neighborhood park (Parcel F). (See Open Space Element, p. 9-20.) The project includes preservation of more than 46 acres (approximately 60% of the total project site) as open space, including hillside meadow open space and wetland, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, open water, and alkali meadow thereby preserving the natural beauty as well as habitat value for plants and wildlife of land that would otherwise be designated for heavy industry use. In doing so the project contributes achieving a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the county as envisioned in the General Plan. (Open Space Element, p. 9-3 [Goal 9-C].) The present of a local park Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 32 of 98 for project residents will accommodate inevitable population growth without significantly impacting demand on public park and recreational facilities. Correct Existing Life-Safety Deficiency – Fire Flow. The project would provide a new 12-inch water transmission main in off-site locations. As part of this configuration, the project would extend Contra Costa Water District's ("CCWD") existing 12-inch transmission main and connect this infrastructure to CCWD’s existing 6-inch water mains in Central Avenue and Palms Drive. This infrastructure and these connections will benefit the over 400 homes in the adjacent Vine Hill neighborhoods in the Vine Hill area and address serious fire flow deficiencies (i.e., water flow and pressure needed for fighting fires) identified by CCWD. The typical fire flow, as required by the California Fire Code, as adopted by the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, for a neighborhood of this size is 1500 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 psi (from two fire hydrants). CCWD has indicated that existing fire flows are of 945 gpm at the current terminus of Central Avenue (at the north end of the project site) and 718 gpm at the current terminus of Palm Drive. As a result, the project will correct a serious existing life-safety deficiency by providing fire flows of 2,554 gpm and 1,781 gpm at Central Avenue and Palms Drive, respectively according to CCWD's analysis, thereby meeting (or exceeding) minimum required fire flow requirements. Sanitary Sewer. Mt. View Sanitary District ("MVSD") is the sanitary sewer service provided for the Vine Hill neighborhoods, and has issued a "Will Serve" letter for the project. The sanitary sewer from the project will connect to the existing MVSD sewer system at the existing terminus of Palms Drive near the north end of the project site. MVSD has indicated that the existing sewer main (old 6” vitrified clay pipe) in Palms Drive is deficient because existing pipe material, size, and/or slope do not meet current MVSD standards. These deficiencies allow for excessive groundwater and stormwater infiltration and inflows, and also have to potential to cause blockages and overflows, which could result in public health issues. The project will replace the Palms Drive sewer main with 8" polyvinyl chloride pipe meeting current MVSD standards. As a result, the new sewer main provided by this project will alleviate the existing sewer problems discussed above. Emergency access. The project would correct existing life-safety deficiencies due to non-compliant emergency vehicle access (EVA), based on requirements pursuant to the California Fire Code (Fire Code) as amended and adopted by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Fire District). Currently, Arthur Road is the only road to this Vine Hill neighborhood with over 400 existing homes. The Fire Code requires two separate fire apparatus access roads. The project would provide a secondary EVA from the south side of the project site to meet code requirements. Currently, Arthur Road extends into the Vine Hill neighborhood Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 33 of 98 with Central Avenue and Palms Drive branching off Arthur Road. Both Central Avenue and Palms Drive dead end at the project site. These dead-end roads exceed the maximum code-prescribed length without a code-prescribed turnaround. The project would extend both Centra Avenue and Palms Drive into the project site and provide connection between the two roads, as well as provide code-prescribed turnarounds for all in-tract dead-end roads, all to Fire Code requirements. Currently, segments of the existing Palms Drive have pavement width of less than 20’, and segments of both Centra Avenue and Palms Drive have damaged and missing pavement. Fire Code requires a minimum clear width of 20’ with pavement structural section sufficient to sustain fire truck wheel loads. The project would repair and replace existing deficient pavement to meet Fire Code requirements and, where open space exists, provide for homes with sprinklers and other fire-safety improvements. Accordingly, by improving Central Avenue and Palms Drive and turning both streets into through streets, by providing a third access road into the neighborhood, and by replacing open space with residential development equipped with sprinklers, the project will provide a greater level of emergency vehicle access than the Fire Code requires and will improve emergency vehicle access for surrounding developments. It should also be noted that, separately from this project, the adjacent approved Palms 10 subdivision (Tract 8744) would also improve a segment of Palms Drive adjacent to the project site. Roadways. Central Ave and Palms Drive provide access to the project site. Central Avenue lacks a continuous sidewalk and its pavement condition over segments not maintained by the County is poor. Palms Drive is generally a private road. It does not have any sidewalk and the pavement over its entire length is poor. Palms Drive at certain locations also does not have a minimum of 20’ of pavement required by code for fire access. The lack of sidewalk is an existing hazard for pedestrians. The poor pavement condition is an existing hazard for motorists, especially emergency vehicles. The project will construct a continuous sidewalk for Central Avenue and also Palms Drive repair the deteriorated pavement, and widen the pavement where needed, all to meet current standards and Fire Code. As a result, the improved Central Ave and Palms Drive will correct the existing road hazards. Elimination of Public Nuisance. The project site is currently vacant property with a gate at the Central Avenue entrance. Adjacent residents have expressed concern about unauthorized activities at or near the site including dirt bikers trespassing on the vacant site and trash dumping. These are public nuisance concerns. The project will the project will convert unused industrial land into needed housing compatible with the adjacent Vine Hill residential neighborhood. As this project is Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 34 of 98 developed, the existing public nuisance issues will be abated due to the currently vacant site being occupied by homes. 7. Certification of EIR. On the basis of the whole record before it, including the EIR, and in accordance with Section 15090, the Board of Supervisors finds that: • The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • The EIR reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; • The EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified impacts and mitigation measures in the EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is intended to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented. All mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Recirculation is Not Required Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), recirculation of a Draft EIR is required only if: “1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; 3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or 4) the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” None of the text edits or changes to the Draft EIR meet any of the above conditions. Therefore, recirculation of any part of the Draft EIR is not required. The information presented in the project EIR support this determination by the County. Differences of Opinion Regarding Environmental Analysis Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 35 of 98 In making its determination to certify the EIR and to approve the project, the Commission recognizes that the project involves controversial environmental issues and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to those issues. The Commission has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as other testimony, letters, and reports submitted for the record. The Commission recognizes that some of the comments submitted on the EIR, and at the hearing, disagree with the conclusions, analysis, methodology and factual bases stated in the EIR. The EIR was prepared by experts, and that some of these comments were from experts, thus creating a disagreement among experts. The Commission has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in the record, and has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Commission to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. Documents and Records For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the County’s decision on the project consists of: a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of the County: • The Notice of Preparation and other public notices issued by the County in conjunction with the project, including but limited to the Notice of Preparation of the EIR posted on June 7, 2017; • The Draft EIR, released for public review on May 13, 2021 and all attachments thereto and sources cited therein; • All written and verbal comments submitted by agencies, organizations, the applicant, and members of the public during the public comment period and responses to those comments; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the County in connection with the project, and all documents cited or referred therein; Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 36 of 98 • All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and all planning documents prepared by the County, the applicant, or their consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the Project; • All documents submitted to the County by agencies, or members of the public, or applicant in connection with the Project, including, but not limited to, the Biological Assessment prepared by Moore Biological Consultants, dated March 17, 2021 (FEIR, pp. 3-132) and the Response to Comments Matrix provided to the County on July 16, 2021; and • The Final EIR, released in November 2021. The foregoing findings are adopted based upon the entire record, and the Commission intends to rely upon all supporting evidence in the record for each of its findings. The location and custodian of the documents and materials that comprise the record is Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, 94553, telephone (925) 655-2705. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 37 of 98 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE BAYVIEW ESTATES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; DISCOVERY BUILDERS (APPLICANT & OWNER); COUNTY FILE#s CDGP04-00013, CDRZ04-03148, CDSD04-08809, CDDP04-03080 Project Approval 1. This approval, including a Vesting Tentative Map, Development Plan, and a Tree Permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees, a is based on the applications/exhibits/reports/letters received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) and/or referenced in the Bayview Estates Residential Project Environmental Impact Report or the Conditions of Approval enumerated below, including the following: • Vesting Tentative Map, dated September 25, 2020. • Final Development Plan and Design Standards, dated August 3, 2021. • Tree Report and addendum prepared by Traverso Tree Service, dated October 23, 2019. • Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) prepared by Balance Hydrologics dated May 29, 2020. • Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO, dated August 15, 2003. • Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations prepared by ENGEO, dated June 27, 2006. • Geotechnical Review of Vesting Tentative Map prepared by ENGEO, dated January 27, 2011. • Geotechnical Response to Peer Review Comments prepared by ENGEO, dated January 27, 2011. • Geotechnical Plan Review and Response to Comments prepared by ENGEO, dated June 19, 2019. • Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bayview Residential Subdivision Project Contra Costa County, California prepared by Douglas Herring & Associates, dated October 29, 2007. • Wetland Delineation Map, dated October 29, 2007 and revised November 18, 2008. • Confirmation of the Extent of Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction at the Bayview Residential Subdivision, dated July 16, 2009. • Updated Biological Assessment prepared by Moore Biological Consultants, dated March 17, 2021. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 38 of 98 • Project Draft EIR and Final EIR, dated May 2021 and November 2021 respectively. Subdivision Entitlements Approval 2. Project File #s CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 are APPROVED contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors actions: A. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment to redesignate the project site from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS) land use designations (File# CDGP04- 00013). B. Approval of the proposed Rezoning from Heavy Industrial District (H-I) to Planed Unit District (P-1) for predominantly single-family-residential use (File# CDRZ04-03148) and the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the project (File# CDDP04-03080). If either the general plan amendment or the rezoning application and development plan are not approved, then this approval shall not be legally binding and void; the filing of Final Maps shall be prohibited. Maximum Number of Lots 3. This approval allows is for a maximum of 144 residential lots. Application Fees 4. The applications submitted were subject to an initial deposit of $17,305 for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, $2,850 for the Major Subdivision, and $3,500 for the Final Development Plan. The applications are subject to time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2019/553, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the Department of Conservation and Development may seek a court judgement against the applicant and will charge interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of judgement. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 39 of 98 to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. Indemnification Agreement 5. Within 10 days after project approval, the applicant shall enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the County, and the applicant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the County), and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, employees, and agents (collectively “County Parties”) from any and all claims, costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages (collectively, “Liabilities”) arising from or related to the project, the applicant’s applications (i.e., general plan amendment, rezoning, vesting tentative map, and development plan), the County’s discretionary approvals for the project, including but not limited to the County’s actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and planning and zoning laws, or the construction and operation of the project, regardless of whether those Liabilities accrue before or after project approval. Compliance Report 6. At least 45 days prior to recordation of the Final Map and/or issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) for review and approval. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administered by the CDD. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions. Copies of the permit conditions may be obtained from the CDD. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable conditions of this report prior to filing the Final Map. Project Phasing / Filing of Multiple Subdivision Maps 7. The filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps must conform with Sections 66456.1 & 66463.1 of the Subdivision Map Act and is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Division and the Public Works Department. Contra Costa County has the authority to impose reasonable conditions relating to the filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps, and the conditions of approval for this subdivision permit shall apply to each subdivision phase. If multiple subdivision maps will be filed, the conditions of approval for this permit must be satisfied for each phase prior to recordation of individual maps, and a separate compliance review application will be required for each subdivision phase to determine the status of the conditions of approval for that phase. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 40 of 98 Child Care 8. Prior to the issuance of grading or 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. Park Impact Fee 9. Prior to submittal of a grading or building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park impact fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication fees and associated credits shall be applied to the required Park Impact fee. Park Dedication Fee 10. Prior to submittal of a grading or building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park dedication fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. The private park provided in the Bayview Residential project meets or exceeds the Park Dedication standards for partial credit for private space; therefore, the project is eligible for a credit equal to fifty percent of the Park Dedication fee per unit. Police Services District 11. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment Police Services: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, 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 per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to 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. MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The County hereby incorporates by reference the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Final EIR. Each mitigation measure is therein a condition of project approval. Aesthetics (AES-1): Construction Screening Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 41 of 98 The project shall incorporate into all construction contracts and ensure implementation of the following measures. 12. To the extent feasible, during all site preparation and exterior construction activities, a screened security fence shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project site abutting residential areas. Visual screening along Central Avenue an d bordering the perimeter of the property abutting residential areas shall be placed and maintained and removed upon completion of construction work. The County shall determine the appropriate height, material and final placement of such fencing, as appropriate and effective given the relative change in elevation and viewpoints to the site. 13. Construction staging areas shall be located in the interior of the project site, away from the property boundary and remain clear of all trash, weeds and debris etc. Construction staging areas may include other areas of the project site when necessary, but shall be located away from adjacent properties and I-680 to minimize visibility from public view to the extent feasible. Air Quality (AIR-1): Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Controlling Particulate Emissions The project applicant shall implement the following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for particulate control. These measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved areas. 14. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 15. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. 16. 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. 17. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 42 of 98 18. 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. 19. 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, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 20. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications prior to operation. 21. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Air Quality (AIR-2): Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures The applicant shall implement the following measures during construction to further reduce construction -related exhaust emissions. 22. All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements: (1) Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited; and (2) All off-road equipment shall have: a) Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 3 off - road emission standards, and b) Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy. Acceptable options for reducing Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 43 of 98 emissions include the use of late model engines, low -emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such are available. Biological Recourses (BIO-1a): Avoidance and Minimization for Impacts to Special- Status Plants 23. A qualified botanist with a minimum of four years of academic training and professional experience in botanical sciences and a minimum of two years of experience conducting rare plant surveys shall conduct surveys (no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities) for special-status plant species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the project site (i.e., Bolander’s water hemlock, soft bird’s-beak, Mason’s lilaeopsis, Congdon’s tarplant, small spikerush, fragrant fritillary, delta tule pea, delta mudwort, and Suisun Marsh aster) in all suitable habitat that would be potentially disturbed by the project. 24. If no special-status plants are found during focused surveys, the botanist shall document the findings of found species in a letter to CDFW and the County, and no further mitigation will be required. 25. If special-status plants are found during focused surveys, the following measures shall be implemented: a) Information regarding the special-status plant populations shall be reported to the CNDDB, mapped, and documented in a technical memorandum provided to the County. b) If federally or state listed species are identified during floristic preconstruction surveys, the project proponent shall mark these plants for avoidance and comply with applicable laws (i.e., the federal and State Endangered Species Acts) including through coordination or consultation with regulatory agencies (i.e., USFWS and/or CDFW), as appropriate, and as described in items d and e, below. c) If other special-status plant populations (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranked or locally significant plants) are identified during floristic preconstruction surveys and can be avoided during project implementation, they shall be clearly marked in the field by a qualified botanist and avoided during construction activities. If a Rank 3 or Rank 4 plant species is detected during the survey, the survey report shall analyze species rarity consistent with CEQA Guidelines Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 44 of 98 (Section 15380) to determine if species protection is warranted. If the plants do not warrant protection, then no further action is needed for these species. d) If special-status plant populations are identified and cannot be avoided, the project proponent shall coordinate or consult with the County and regulatory agencies, as appropriate, on relocation of special-status plants. To the extent feasible, special-status plants that would be impacted by the project shall be relocated within local suitable habitat. This can be done either through salvage and transplanting or by collection and propagation of seeds or other vegetative material. Any plant relocation or reintroduction through seeds or other vegetative material would be done under the supervision of a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist. e) If rare plants can be avoided, prior to vegetation removal, ground clearing or ground disturbance, all on-site construction personnel shall be instructed as to the species’ presence and the importance of avoiding impacts to rare plant species and their habitat though the Worker Environmental Awareness Program training as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2a. f) The project proponent shall prepare a Rare Plan Relocation/Reintroduction and Monitoring Plan for relocated or reintroduced special-status plants which shall detail relocation or reintroduction methods or appropriate replacement ratios (e.g., at least 1:1 based on number of relocated plants or the area occupied by rare plants, as appropriate for the species) and methods for implementation (e.g., planting methods, need for supplemental irrigation, or weed control), success criteria (e.g., greater than 70% survival or ground coverage following 5 years), monitoring and reporting protocols, and contingency measures that shall be implemented if the initial mitigation fails (e.g., replanting to achieve success criteria). The plan shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate agencies prior to the start of local construction activities with the objective of providing equal or better habitat and populations than the impacted area(s). The County shall approve the plan. g) If special-status plants are relocated from the project or reintroduction of plants or seed is implemented, the project proponent shall maintain and monitor the relocation sites and/or restored areas for 5 years following the completion of construction and restoration activities. The project proponent shall submit monitoring reports to the County at the completion of restoration and for 5 years following restoration implementation. Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 45 of 98 layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the mitigation plan. Biological Recourses (BIO-2a): Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training 26. A project-specific Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training shall be developed and implemented by a qualified biologist for the project and attended by all construction personnel prior to beginning work onsite. Typical credentials for a qualified biologist include a minimum of four years of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, and a minimum of two years of experience conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the project area. The training could consist of a recorded presentation that could be reused for new personnel. The WEAP training shall generally address but not be limited to the following: a) Applicable State and federal laws, environmental regulations, project permit conditions, and penalties for non-compliance. b) Special-status plant and animal species with potential to occur at or in the vicinity of the project site, their habitat, the importance of these species and their habitat, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project construction shall occur, avoidance measures, and a protocol for encountering such species including a communication chain. c) Pre-construction surveys associated with each phase of work. d) Known sensitive resource areas in the project vicinity that are to be avoided and/or protected as well as approved project work areas. e) Best management practices (BMPs) and their location on the project site for erosion control and/or species exclusion. Biological Recourses (BIO-2b): General Conservation Measures during Construction The project proponent shall ensure that the following general measures are implemented by the contractor during construction to prevent and minimize impacts on special-status species and sensitive biological resources. 27. Ground disturbance and construction footprints will be minimized to the Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 46 of 98 greatest degree feasible. 28. Vehicles shall observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit within the project site. 29. The contractor shall provide closed garbage containers for the disposal of all food-related trash items. All garbage shall be collected daily from the project site and placed in a closed container from which garbage shall be removed weekly. Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract fish or wildlife to the project site. 30. As necessary, erosion control measures shall be implemented to prevent any soil or other materials from entering any nearby aquatic habitat. Erosion control measures shall be installed at work site boundaries adjacent to aquatic habitat to prevent soil from eroding or falling into the area. 31. Erosion control measures shall be implemented as described in the project SWPPP. Sediment control measures shall be furnished, constructed, maintained, and later removed. Plastic monofilament of any kind (including those labeled as biodegradable, photodegradable, or UV-degradable) shall not be used. Only natural burlap, coir, or jute wrapped fiber rolls that are certified weed-free shall be used. 32. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and equipment and the location of project staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from any aquatic habitat and associated freshwater and saltmarsh vegetation. Spill kits containing cleanup materials shall be available on-site. 33. No equipment used in support of project implementation (e.g. excavator) shall enter or cross waters in the project area while water is flowing. 34. Project personnel shall be required to report immediately any harm, injury, or mortality of a listed species (federal or state) during construction, including entrapment, to the construction foreman, qualified biologist, or County staff. The County or their consultant shall provide verbal notification to the USFWS Endangered Species Office in Sacramento, California, and/or to the local CDFW warden or biologist (as applicable) within 1 working day of the incident. The County or their consultant shall follow up with written notification to the appropriate agencies within 5 working days of the incident. All special-status species observations shall be recorded on California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) field sheets/IPaC and sent to the CDFW/USFWS and by County staff or their consultant. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 47 of 98 Biological Recourses (BIO-2c): Avoidance, Minimization, and Protection Measures for Sensitive Amphibians and Reptiles The following conservation measures shall be implemented to minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts on California red-legged frog (CRLF) and western pond turtle (WPT) during project construction. 35. Consistent with the USFWS California Red-legged Frog Survey Protocol, a habitat assessment shall be prepared and submitted to the USFWS to support their determination of the species’ potential to occur on site. If the USFWS agrees that the habitat assessment establishes species absence, or if subsequent protocol- level surveys requested by the USFWS following their review of the habitat assessment establish species absence, then no further action shall be needed to protect this species. In the absence of USFWS coordination, CRLF shall be presumed present within suitable aquatic habitat on the site and protective measures described below shall be followed. 36. A qualified biologist shall survey the work sites within 5 calendar days prior to the onset of construction for CRLF and WPT to determine presence (and life stage) of these species on the project site. Additionally, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of project aquatic habitat for CRLF and WPT immediately prior to the start of construction activities, beginning with installation of exclusion fencing. The surveys will consist of walking the project work limits adjacent to areas where natural habitat is present to ascertain presence of these species (e.g., grasslands adjacent to suitable aquatic habitat within the project site). 37. Prior to conducting preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for WPT and identifies nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities. The animal shall be relocated to equivalent or better WPT habitat relative to where it was found. 38. A qualified biologist shall monitor installation of exclusion fencing to identify, capture, and relocate WPT if found, and halt or observe work in the vicinity of CRLF if encountered onsite. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop construction activities proximate to these species and develop alternative work practices, in consultation with construction personnel and resource agencies (as appropriate), if construction activities are likely to affect special‐status species or other sensitive biological resources. Unless explicitly authorized by the USFWS Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 48 of 98 (e.g., through issuance of a Biological Opinion), CRLF shall not be relocated if encountered within the project site. Rather CRLF shall be allowed to disperse of their own volition while all work is halted within 50 feet of individuals. If a CRLF is not dispersing on its own volition, the qualified biologist shall monitor the frog while exclusion fence installation or other work continues, as long as they can ensure the safety of the frog. The qualified biologist shall immediately inform the construction manager that work should be halted or modified (in the case of a buffer or non-dispersing individual), if necessary, to avert avoidable take of listed species. Should egg masses, metamorphs, or tadpoles of CRLF be identified within project site aquatic habitat during these initial surveys or at any time during project construction, the USFWS shall be contacted prior to continuation of work near the discovery. If WPT and/or CRLF are not observed during pre- construction surveys or installation of the exclusion fence, continued biological monitoring during construction is not necessary. If either of these species are observed onsite at any time, the project applicant shall coordinate with USFWS and /or CDFW as necessary to determine the appropriate measures to avoid species’ take. 39. The project proponent or its contractors shall install temporary exclusion fencing around key project boundaries (i.e., at the work limit of aquatic habitat and associated marsh vegetation to be preserved under the project) and around all staging and laydown areas to exclude CRLF and WPT from project construction activities: • Fencing shall be installed immediately prior to the start of construction activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. • The project applicant or their contractor shall ensure that the temporary exclusion fencing is continuously maintained until all project construction activities are completed. Daily fence inspections shall be conducted by the qualified biologist during the first week of construction. Thereafter, the qualified biologist may train the contractor to conduct regular inspections and coordinate findings with the qualified biologist. Similarly, vehicles or equipment parked overnight at the project staging areas or work areas shall be inspected for harboring species each morning by the qualified biologist (or the trained contractor) before they are moved. • The wildlife exclusion fencing shall be a minimum height of 3 feet above ground surface, with an additional 4 to 6 inches of fence material buried such that animals cannot burrow under the fence. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 49 of 98 • The exclusion fence shall not cross the marsh associated with Pacheco Creek along the south edge of the site or bisect marsh vegetation to allow wildlife movement to continue through these areas when work is not occurring. 40. All onsite excavations of a depth of 8 inches or greater shall be either backfilled at the end of each workday, covered with heavy metal plates, or escape ramps shall be installed at a 3:1 grade to allow wildlife that fall in a means to escape. Biological Recourses (BIO-3a): Nesting Bird Protection Measures 41. Project staging, project construction, vegetation removal (e.g., clearing and grubbing), vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, or tree trimming shall be performed outside of the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; if these activities must be performed during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-construction survey in the project construction and staging areas for nesting birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities or after any construction breaks of 5 calendar days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the project construction and staging areas and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the project construction and staging areas in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 500 feet of the project construction and staging areas to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nest. If nesting birds and raptors do not occur within 250 and 500 feet of the project area, respectively, then no further action is required if construction begins within 5 calendar days. 42. If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, no- disturbance buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist. Typically, these buffer distances are between 50 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity and if an obstruction, such as a building or structure, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. Reduced buffers may be allowed if a full-time qualified biologist is present to monitor the nest and has authority to halt construction if bird behavior indicates continued activities could lead to nest failure. Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction-related activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 50 of 98 Biological Recourses (BIO-3b): Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail 43. To minimize or avoid the loss of individual California black rail and Ridgway’s rail, construction activities, including vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, adjacent to tidal marsh areas (within 500 feet [150 meters] or a distance determined in coordination with USFWS or CDFW, shall be avoided during the breeding season from February 1 through August 31. • If areas within or adjacent to rail habitat cannot be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), protocol-level surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities, or after any construction breaks of 5 calendar days or more, to determine rail nesting locations. The surveys will focus on potential habitat that could be disturbed by construction activities during the breeding season to ensure that rails are not breeding in these locations. Survey methods for rails will follow the Site-Specific Protocol for Monitoring Marsh Birds, which was developed for use by USFWS and partners to improve bay-wide monitoring accuracy by standardizing surveys and increasing the ability to share data (Wood et al. 2017). Surveys are conducted during the approximate period of peak detectability, January 15 to March 25 and are structured to efficiently sample an area in three rounds of surveys by broadcasting calls of target species during specific periods of each survey round. Call broadcasting increases the probability of detection compared to passive surveys when no call broadcasting is employed. This protocol has since been adopted by Invasive Spartina project (ISP) and Point Blue Conservation Science to survey Ridgway’s rails at sites throughout San Francisco Bay Estuary. The survey protocol for Ridgway’s rail is summarized below. − Previously used survey locations (points) should be used when available to maintain consistency with past survey results. New survey points should be at least 200 meters apart along transects in or adjacent to areas representative of potentially suitable marsh habitat. Points should be located to minimize disturbances to marsh vegetation. Up to 8 points can be located on a transect. − At each transect, three surveys (rounds) are to be conducted, with the first round of surveys initiated between January 15 and February 6, the second round performed February 7 to February 28, and the third round March 1 to March 25. Surveys should be spaced at least one week apart and the period between March 25 to April 15 can be used to complete surveys delayed by logistical or weather issues. A Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required to conduct active surveys. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 51 of 98 − Each point on a transect will be surveyed for 10 minutes each round. A recording of calls available from USFWS is broadcast at each point. The recording consists of 5 minutes of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of Ridgway’s rail vocalizations, followed by 30 seconds of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of California black rail, followed by 3.5 minutes of silence. • If no breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are detected during surveys, or if their breeding territories can be avoided by 500 feet (150 meters), then project activities may proceed at that location. • If protocol surveys determine that breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are present in the project area, the following measures would apply to project activities conducted during their breeding season (February 1- August 31): − A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with experience recognizing Ridgway’s rail and black rail vocalizations will be on site during construction activities occurring within 500 feet (150 meters) of suitable rail breeding habitat. − If a Ridgway’s rail or black rail vocalizes or flushes within 10 meters, it is possible that a nest or young are nearby. If an alarmed bird or nest is detected, work will be stopped, and workers will leave the immediate area carefully and quickly. An alternate route will be selected that avoids this area, and the location of the sighting will be recorded to inform future activities in the area. − All crews working within 500 feet of aquatic habitats during rail breeding season will be trained and supervised by a USFWS- and CDFW-approved rail biologist. − If any activities will be conducted during the rail breeding season in Ridgway’s rail- or black rail-occupied marshes, biologists will have maps or GPS locations of the most current occurrences on the site and will proceed cautiously and minimize time spent in areas where rails were detected. • For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rail or black rail, the following measures will be implemented: Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 52 of 98 − Any herbicides to be used will be EPA-certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. − Vegetation management activities will be limited to areas outside of tidal marsh and non-tidal pickleweed marsh habitats. Biological Recourses (BIO-4a): Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse 44. A USFWS and CDFW-approved biologist, with knowledge of and experience with salt marsh harvest mouse habitat requirements, will conduct pre-construction surveys for the species and identify and mark suitable salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat prior to project initiation. 45. Ground disturbance to suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (including, but not limited to pickleweed, and emergent salt marsh vegetation including bulrush and cattails) will be avoided to the extent feasible. Where salt marsh harvest mouse habitat cannot be avoided - such as for channel excavation, access routes and grading, or anywhere else that vegetation could be trampled or crushed by work activities - vegetation will be removed from the ground disturbance work area plus a 10-foot buffer around the area, as well as any access routes within salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, utilizing mechanized hand tools or by another method approved by the USFWS and CDFW. Vegetation height shall be maintained at or below 5 inches above ground. Vegetation removal in salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be conducted under the supervision of the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist. 46. To protect salt marsh harvest mouse from construction-related traffic, access roads, haul routes, and staging areas within 200 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be bordered by temporary exclusion fencing. The fence should be made of a smooth material that does not allow salt marsh harvest mouse to climb or pass through, of a minimum above-ground height of 30 inches, and the bottom should be buried to a depth of at least 6 inches so that mice cannot crawl under the fence. Any supports for the salt marsh harvest mouse exclusion fencing (e.g., t-posts) will be placed on the inside of the project area. The last 5 feet of the fence shall be angled away from the road to direct wildlife away from the road. A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse experience will be on site during fence installation and will check the fence alignment prior to vegetation clearing and fence installation to ensure no salt marsh harvest mice are present. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 53 of 98 47. All construction equipment and materials will be staged on existing roadways and away from suitable wetland habitats when not in use. 48. Vegetation shall be removed from all non-marsh areas of disturbance (driving roads, grading and stockpiling areas) to discourage presence of salt marsh harvest mouse. 49. A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience will be on site during construction activities occurring in suitable habitat. The biologist will document compliance with the project permit conditions and avoidance and conservation measures. The USFWS-and CDFW-approved biologist has the authority to stop project activities if any of the requirements associated with these measures is not being fulfilled. If salt marsh harvest mouse is observed in the work area, construction activities will cease in the immediate vicinity of the salt marsh harvest mouse. The individual will be allowed to leave the area before work is resumed. If the individual does not move on its own volition, the USFWS-approved biologist would contact USFWS (and CDFW if appropriate) for further guidance on how to proceed. 50. If the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has requested work stoppage because of take of any of the listed species, or if a dead or injured salt marsh harvest mouse is observed, the USFWS and CDFW will be notified within one day by email or telephone. 51. For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse, the following measures shall be implemented: − Any herbicides to be used will be EPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. − Work in upland habitat within 100 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Biological Recourses (BIO-4b): Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Bats 52. No more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist who is experienced with bat surveying techniques, behavior, roosting habitat, and identification of local bat species shall conduct a pre-construction habitat Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 54 of 98 assessment of the project site to characterize potential bat habitat and identify potentially active roost sites. No further action is required if the pre-construction habitat assessment does not identify bat habitat or signs of potentially active bat roosts within the project site (e.g., guano, urine staining, dead bats, etc.). 53. If the surveying biologist identifies potential roosting habitat or potentially active bat roosts within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including trees that could be trimmed or removed under the project, the following measures shall be implemented: 1) Removal of or disturbance to trees identified as potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15, to the extent feasible. These dates avoid bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 to August 31) and period of winter torpor (approximately October 15 to February 28). a. If removal of- or disturbance to trees identified as potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts during the periods when bats are active is not feasible, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within 5 calendar days prior to disturbance to further evaluate bat activity within the potential habitat or roost site. b. If active bat roosts are not identified in potential habitat during pre- construction surveys, no further action is required prior to removal of- or disturbance to trees within the pre-construction survey area. c. If active bat roosts or evidence of roosting is identified during pre- construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall determine, if possible, the type of roost and species. i) If special-status bat species or maternity or hibernation roosts are detected during these surveys, appropriate species- and roost- specific avoidance and protection measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist. Such measures may include postponing the removal of or disturbance to trees, or establishing exclusionary work buffers while the roost is active. A minimum 100-foot no disturbance buffer shall be established around special-status species, maternity, or hibernation roosts until the qualified biologist determines they are no longer active. The size of the no-disturbance buffer may be adjusted by the qualified Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 55 of 98 biologist, in coordination with CDFW, depending on the species present, roost type, existing screening around the roost site (such as dense vegetation), as well as the type of construction activity that would occur around the roost site, and if construction would not alter the behavior of the adult or young in a way that would cause injury or death to those individuals. Active maternity roosts shall not be disturbed without advance CDFW approval until the roost disbands at the completion of the maternity roosting season or otherwise becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified biologist. ii) If a common species, non-maternity or hibernation roost (e.g., bachelor daytime roost) is identified, disturbance to- or removal of trees or structures may occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist as described under 2) below. 2) The qualified biologist shall be present during tree di sturbance or removal if active non-maternity or hibernation bat roosts or potential roosting habitat are present. Trees with active non-maternity or hibernation roosts of common species or potential habitat shall be disturbed or removed only under clear weather conditions when precipitation is not forecast for three days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F to ensure bats are active and can abandon any potential roosts as disturbance from the clearing activities occurs, and when wind speeds are less than 15 mph. Trimming or removal of trees with active (non-maternity or hibernation) or potentially active roost sites of common bat species shall follow a two-step removal process: a. On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be cut only using hand tools (e.g., chainsaws). b. On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using hand tools or other equipment (e.g. excavator or backhoe). c. All felled trees shall remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other processing to allow any bats to Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 56 of 98 escape, or be inspected once felled by the qualified biologist to ensure no bats remain within the tree and/or branches. 3) Bat roosts that begin during construction are presumed to be unaffected as long as a similar type of construction activity continues, and no buffer would be necessary. Direct impacts on bat roosts or take of individual bats will be avoided. Biological Recourses (BIO-5a): Salvage and Reintroduction of Creeping Wildrye Grassland The following measures shall be implemented prior to construction to avoid or minimize impacts to creeping wildrye grassland within the project site. 54. A qualified botanist shall identify the boundaries of creeping wildrye grassland within the project site during the flowering season (between June and July) and prior to site grading. Boundaries of this sensitive natural community shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance, if feasible. 55. Where avoidance of this community is infeasible, the perennial grasses shall be harvested at the appropriate time and under the direction of the qualified botanist from locations where grading and/or ground disturbance will occur within the project site. 56. Harvested grasses shall be stored for reintroduction into suitable habitat within upland portions of the project site that will be preserved as open space. 57. The project applicant shall contract a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a Monitoring Plan for relocated / transplanted creeping wildrye grasses within the project site. The plan shall detail methods and location for relocating or reintroducing the grasses, success criteria, monitoring methods and maintenance for successful establishment, reporting protocols, and contingency measures to be implemented if the initial mitigation fails. The plan shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate agencies prior to the start of local construction activities, with the objective of providing equal or better habitat and populations than the impacted area(s). The recommended success criteria for relocated plants shall be 1:1 ratio [number of plants established: number of plants impacted] after two years, unless otherwise specified by CDFW. The plan shall be submitted to the County and CDFW prior to the start of local construction activities within the creeping wildrye grassland. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 57 of 98 58. Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the monitoring plan. Biological Recourses (BIO-5b): Enhancement and Creation of Valley Oak Woodland 59. The project applicant shall mitigate for temporary disturbance of oak woodland in support of the project through restoration or preservation / enhancement / creation of oak woodland at a ratio of 1:1 (restored/enhanced/preserved area: impacted area) through one of the following options: 1) Planting replacement trees within the project site on areas of the hill that will be preserved as open space following development. The project sponsor shall contract with a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for oak woodland habitat to be restored as part of the project. The HMMP would be subject to approval by Contra Costa County. The HMMP shall include a detailed description of restoration/ enhancement/preservation actions proposed such as a planting plan, a weed control plan to prevent the spread of invasive and non-native species within restored areas, and erosion control measures to be installed around the restored area following mitigation planting to avoid or minimize sediment runoff throughout the project site; restoration performance criteria for the restored area that establish success thresholds over a period of 5 years; and proposed monitoring/maintenance program to evaluate the restoration performance criteria, under which progress of restored areas are tracked to ensure survival of the mitigation plantings. The program shall document overall health and vigor of mitigation plantings throughout the monitoring period and provide recommendations for adaptive management as needed to ensure the site is successful, according to the established performance criteria. An annual report documenting the results and providing recommendations for improvements throughout the year shall be provided to the County. In designing the Tree Replacement Plan, the arborist shall review the final project grading plans to ensure that adequate tree preservation methods, guidelines, and conditions are in place. The project arborist shall host pre- demolition meetings with the general contractor and demolition contractor to determine clearance pruning, stump removal techniques, fencing placement and, timing to establish a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The arborist shall conduct post-demolition meetings to review and confirm tree protection fencing for grading and construction. All vehicles, equipment, Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 58 of 98 and storage of job site materials and debris, shall be kept outside of the TPZ. The arborist shall incorporate standard protocols set forth in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Construction Management Standard, Part 5 and the International Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction. 2) Paying an in-lieu fee to a natural resource agency or a non-profit organization that would use the fees to protect or enhance oak woodland habitat of the region. If an in-lieu fee is used for mitigation, the amount of the in-lieu fee shall be determined either by calculating the value of the land with oak woodland habitat proposed for removal, or by some other calculation. An alternate calculation shall reflect differences in the quality of habitat proposed for removal, and may consider the cost of comparable habitat (fee title or easement) in nearby areas. The amount of the in-lieu fee and entity receiving the funds shall be subject to review and approval by Contra Costa County. Biological Recourses (BIO-6a): Protection of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters For project development within or adjacent to state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters, protection measures shall be applied to protect these features. These measures shall be implemented prior to and throughout all site disturbance and construction activities and shall include the following: 60. An updated wetland delineation shall be submitted to USACE for verification to establish the boundaries and current jurisdictional status of the aquatic features in the site. The verified wetland delineation shall be used to quantify the project impacts to aquatic resources for permitting purposes. 61. To the maximum extent feasible, project construction activities within or adjacent to wetlands or waters shall be conducted during the dry season (between June 15 and October 15) and the disturbance footprint shall be minimized in these areas. 62. Stabilize disturbed, exposed slopes immediately upon completion of construction activities (e.g., following cut and fill activities and installation of bioretention pond infrastructure) to prevent any soil or other materials from entering aquatic habitat. Plastic monofilament of any kind (including those labeled as biodegradable, photodegradable, or UV-degradable) shall not be used. Only natural burlap, coir, coconut or jute wrapped fiber rolls and mats shall be used. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 59 of 98 63. A protective barrier (fence) shall be erected around any wetlands or waters designated for complete avoidance in project construction plans and regulatory permits to isolate it from construction or other ground-disturbing activities. 64. A fencing material meeting the requirements of both water quality protection and wildlife exclusion may be used. Fences must be properly installed with final approval by a County representative, including adequate supports or wire backing for use if windy conditions are anticipated, and with the lower edge keyed in to the soil to ensure a proper barrier. Signage shall be installed on the fencing to identify sensitive habitat areas and restrict construction activities. 65. No equipment mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of vehicles, equipment or machinery, or similar activity shall occur until a County representative has inspected and approved the wetland protection fence. 66. The project proponent shall ensure that the temporary fence is continuously maintained until all construction or other ground-disturbing activities are completed. 67. Drip pans and/or liners shall be stationed beneath all equipment staged nearby jurisdictional features overnight to minimize spill of deleterious materials into jurisdictional waters. Equipment maintenance and refueling in support of project implementation shall be performed in designated upland staging areas and work areas, and spill kits shall be available on-site. Maintenance activity and fueling must occur at least 100 feet from jurisdictional wetlands and other waters or farther as specified in the project permits and authorizations. Biological Recourses (BIO-6b): Permits and Compensation for Impacts to Wetlands and Waters 68. Prior to and throughout site disturbance and construction activities, to offset unavoidable permanent impacts to approximately 0.02 acres of the side-hill seep and the fill of less than 0.1 acres for construction of the storm drain outfall along the bank of Pacheco Creek, the project applicant shall secure the appropriate permits and provide compensatory mitigation as determined by the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the impacted aquatic resources during the permitting process. To establish the jurisdictional status of the various aquatic features in the site, the updated wetland delineation will be submitted to USACE for verification. The necessary permits will depend on the jurisdictional status of the features. While the outfall in Pacheco Creek is expected to require permits from USACE (Nationwide 7), CDFW (1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement), and Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 60 of 98 RWQCB (401 Certification), the permitting scenario of the side-hill seep is less predictable. It is possible USACE will verify this feature as outside Clean Water Act jurisdiction due to spatial and hydrological isolation from other Waters of the U.S. If the seep is verified as non-jurisdictional, the Regional Water Quality Control Board Water would be expected to issue a Notice of Applicability to authorize its fill pursuant to Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ. At a minimum, or as determined by the USACE, compensation acreage for impacted wetlands and waters would meet a 1:1 ratio (created/restored/enhanced: impacted) to achieve no net loss of aquatic resources. Compensation may include on-site or off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of jurisdictional resources, as determined by the permitting agencies. On-site or off-site creation/restoration/enhancement plans must be prepared by a qualified biologist prior to construction, include a planting plan and planting methods, monitoring and reporting requirements, performance criteria (e.g., species diversity and vegetative cover thresholds), and maintenance requirements, and is subject to review and modification by resource agency permits. Implementation of creation/restoration/enhancement activities by the project applicant (or permittee) shall occur prior to project impacts, whenever possible, to avoid temporal loss. On- or off-site creation/restoration/enhancement sites shall be monitored by the applicant for at least five years to ensure their success, or as otherwise required by resource agencies. Cultural Recourses (CUL-1a): Prehistoric and/or Historic-Period Archaeological Resources 69. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, including ground disturbance associated with project construction, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the County of their initial assessment. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked- stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 61 of 98 If the County determines, based on recommendations from a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative (if the resource is Native American-related), that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC Section 21080.3), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the County shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is Native American-related), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, determined by a qualified professional or California Native American tribe, as is appropriate (according to PRC Section 21084.3). 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. 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. The resource shall be treated with the appropriate dignity, taking into account the resource’s historical or cultural value, meaning, and traditional use, as determined by a qualified professional or California Native American tribe, as is appropriate. 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 proponent and at the County’s discretion, the professional may work under contract with the County. Cultural Recourses (CUL-1b): Discovery or Recognition Human Remains During Construction Activities In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction activities, the following steps shall be taken: Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 62 of 98 70. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the location where human remains are found or within 100 feet until: a) 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 b) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: i) The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; ii) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; iii) 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 71. 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: a) 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; i) The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or ii) 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. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 63 of 98 Geology and Soils (GEO-1): Grading Plans 72. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits: The project applicant shall include in the project’s preliminary grading plan the recommendations made in Engeo’s Geotechnical Exploration Bay View Subdivision report dated August 15, 2003, the Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plan and Supplemental Recommendations dated June 27, 2006, and supplemental Plan Review and Response to Peer Review Comments Memo dated June 19, 2019, and Response to CCCFCD Comments Regarding Geotechnical Feasibility Bayview dated May 29, 2020, except as superseded by specific geotechnical recommendations related to engineering or the physical aspects of project construction in the Geologic Peer Reviews dated August 9, 2006, April 14, 2006 and June 30, 2020 by Darwin Myers Associates (DMA) on behalf of the County, to the extent that all recommendations apply to the proposed grading plan. These recommendations include oversight of grading operations which shall be conducted by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading plans shall be in accordance with the Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance (Title 7 Division 716) and reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of project construction. If any slopes or areas of concern are observed to be unstable during grading, the California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer shall oversee the removal of the suspected material and reconstruction of the slope as a buttress fill slope with engineered slope stabilization features such as geogrid reinforcement. Geological Reports shall be reviewed by the County’s Peer Review Geologist (Fee: $3,600 + time-and-materials costs). Prior to issuance of residential building permits: Final inspection of excavated slopes and graded slopes shall be completed by a California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer with knowledge of the project conditions. The slope stability considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved of by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of project construction. Geology and Soils (GEO-2): Design-level Geotechnical Investigation 73. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits: The project applicant shall prepare and submit to the County a site-specific, design level geotechnical Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 64 of 98 investigation for the project. The investigation shall analyze expected ground motions at the site from known active faults in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (“Title 24”), which requires that all designs accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. The investigation shall review improvement and grading plans and update geotechnical design recommendations for proposed walls, foundations, foundation slabs and surrounding related improvements (e.g., utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks) including maintaining pipeline safety for existing pipelines. The report shall be subject to technical review and approval by a California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer. All recommendations by the engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design. Recommendations that are applicable to foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation that were prepared prior to or during the project design phase, shall be incorporated in the project, all foundations and other project structures must comply with the performance standards set forth in the California Building Code. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved of by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of project construction. Geological Reports shall be reviewed by the County’s Peer Review Geologist (Fee: $3,600 + time-and-materials costs). Geology and Soils (GEO-3): Fill Placement 74. The project applicant shall incorporate the geotechnical recommendations pertaining to proposed fill placement and site preparation including the fill transition zone areas for the grading plan for the project, as specified in Engeo’s Geotechnical Exploration Bay View Subdivision report dated August 15, 2003, and the Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plan and Supplemental Recommendations dated June 27, 2006, and supplemental Plan Review and Response to Peer Review Comments Memo dated June 19, 2019 and Response to CCCFCD Comments Regarding Geotechnical Feasibility dated May 29, 2020, except as superseded by specific geotechnical recommendations related to engineering or the physical aspects of project construction in the Geologic Peer Reviews dated August 9, 2006, April 14, 2006, and June 30, 2020 by Darwin Myers Associates (DMA) on behalf of the County. In addition, the project applicant shall adhere to County grading and construction policies to reduce the potential for geologic hazards, including settlement and differential settlement. All construction activities and design criteria shall comply with applicable codes and Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 65 of 98 requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (“Title 24”). The final grading plan reflecting the applicant recommendation for the site pertaining to fill placement shall be submitted to and approved by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of project construction. Geology and Soils (GEO-4): Terraced Slopes/Drainage 75. The project applicant shall ensure routine inspections and maintenance of terraced slopes conducted by qualified professionals. Maintenance measures shall include maintaining vegetative cover of exposed slopes upland of the proposed development after construction, for the operational life of the project, consistent with the provisions of the project's SWPPP, as identified in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, if this EIR. Drainage conveyances on the cut terraces shall be maintained to ensure a minimum of 85 percent of total conveyance capacity, as specified in the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Any evidence of gulley or rill erosional effects shall be remedied immediately by the project applicant through additional hydroseeding or other industry standard measures and best practices for erosion control. Geology and Soils (GEO-5): Treatment of Paleontological Resources 76. If paleontological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the County shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology’s Professional Standards shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the County. Treatment of unique paleontological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 66 of 98 portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG-1): GHG Emissions Reduction Plan 77. Prior to the County’s approval of the first building permit for the project, the project applicant shall submit to the County a “GHG Emissions Reduction Plan” (“Plan”) for implementation over the useful life of the project (generally estimated to be at least 30 years) in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure. The Plan shall document the GHG reduction measures that will be combined and implemented to achieve the required emissions reduction of at least 182 MT CO2e /year, and a quantification of the emissions reductions achieved with the combination of measures identified in the Plan. a) On-Site Reduction Measures. The project applicant shall implement any combination of the following GHG emissions reduction measures to, cumulatively, achieve the required emissions reduction of at least approximately 182 MT CO2e /year to achieve the GHG efficiency target of 3.86 MTCO2e/SP. i) Meet the project’s electricity demand with rooftop solar PV and/or through purchase of 100% zero-carbon electricity. The project will purchase 100% zerocarbon electricity (e.g., through MCE’s “Deep Green” or “Local Sol” plans, or through PG&E’s “Solar Choice” plan). ii) Electrification. The project applicant shall demonstrate on project plans submitted to the County for review and approval that each of the 144 homes include electric heating and cooling or all loads, and will either use additional on-site solar or purchase 100 percent zero-carbon electricity (e.g., through MCE’s “Deep Green” or “Local Sol” plans or PG&E’s “Solar Choice” plan). Alternatively, default gridsupplied electricity would be incorporated into the project. iii) Hearth Reduction. The project applicant shall demonstrate on project plans submitted to the County for review and approval that hearths will not be installed in any of the project homes. iv) EV Chargers and Promotion. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 67 of 98 • The project applicant shall demonstrate on project plans submitted to the County for review and approval the proposed installation of residential electrical vehicle (EV) chargers in at least 100 of the 144 homes. This mitigation involves measures beyond the required installation of charging capability (i.e., wiring) required by CALGreen Building Code. • The project applicant shall submit to the County promotional materials that specifically promote EV use through messaging (e.g., flyers, fact sheets), vehicle subsidies, and/or test-drive events specific for residents of project homes. The project applicant shall also submit to the County documents that quantify the number or rate of EV ownership and for all project homes for the prior year. • The target for this measure is that at least 50 percent of residents with EV chargers (corresponding to 35 percent of project households) own an EV and use the EV for 80 percent of household driving by 2035, however, this target may vary depending on the level of implementation and resulting emissions reduction achieved by other measures in this mitigation measure. v) Additional Energy Measures-High-Efficiency Appliances. Throughout occupancy of the project, and if appliances are offered by homebuilders, the Project applicant shall offer homebuyers Energy Star-rated high-efficiency appliances (or other equivalent technology) that have efficiency levels at or above measures required by CALGreen, for installation in project homes. b) Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement. The project applicant shall implement the approved GHG Reduction Plan (Plan) throughout operation of the project. • On-site Measures. For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the project (Mitigation Measures GHG- 1a), the measures shall be included on the drawings and submitted to the County Planning Director or his/her designee for review and confirmation prior to issuance of the first grading and/or building permit for horizontal construction of each of the up to three development phases proposed. The County Planning Director or his/her designee shall confirm completion of the implementation of these measures as part of the final inspection and prior to issuance of Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 68 of 98 the final certificate of occupancy (CO) for each development phase of the project. For operational GHG reduction measures (Mitigation Measures GHG-1a), the measures shall be implemented on an indefinite and ongoing basis, as described below in Reporting and Monitoring of this mitigation measure: • Reporting. The project applicant shall submit a GHG Reduction Report (Report) to the County Planning Director or his/her designee within one year after the County issues the final CO for each development phase of the project. The report shall summarize the project’s implementation of GHG reduction measures, over past, current, and anticipated project phases, if applicable; describe compliance with the conditions of the Plan; show calculations of the emissions reduction achieved toward the minimum reduction required (182 MT CO2e /year); and include a brief summary of any revisions to the Plan since any previous report was submitted. • Monitoring. The County or its designee shall review the report to verify that the Plan is being implemented in full and monitored in accordance with the terms of this mitigation measure. The Plan shall be considered fully attained when the County or its designee makes the determination, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed project has achieved the required emissions reduction of at least approximately 182 MT CO2e /year and is unlikely to exceed the applicable significance threshold at any time in the future, after implementation of this mitigation. • Enforcement: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the County retains its discretion to enforce all mechanisms under the Municipal Code and other laws to enforce non-compliance with the requirements of this mitigation measure. The County retains the right to request a Corrective Action Plan if the report is not submitted, or if the GHG Reduction Measures in the Plan are not being fully implemented and/or maintained, and also retains the right to enforce provisions of that Corrective Action Plan if specified actions are not taken or are not successful at addressing the violation within the specified period of time. The County shall have the discretion to reasonably modify the timing of reporting, with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment by the applicant, to coincide with other related monitoring and reporting required for the project. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 69 of 98 Noise (NOI-1): Temporary Construction Noise 78. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the applicant shall create and implement a developments-specific noise-reduction plan to reduce noise at sensitive receptors along Central Avenue to below 75 dBA Lmax, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-polluting methods to maintain or reduce construction-related noise to threshold levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. Examples of measures that can effectively reduce noise impacts include locating equipment in shielded and/or less noise-sensitive areas, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels, and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other feasible controls could include, but shall not be limited to, fan silencers, enclosures, and mechanical equipment screen walls. In addition, the applicant shall require contractors to limit construction activities in the northernmost 500 feet of the project site to daytime hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The plan for attenuating construction-related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. Public Services (PUB-1): Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 79. The project applicant shall equip all dwelling units with residential automatic fire sprinkler systems, complying with the 2016 edition of the National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D, or otherwise most current edition, subject to the review and approval of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Transportation (TRF-1): Construction Management and Traffic Control 80. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project applicant and construction contractor(s) shall develop and submit a Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan for the review and approval of the County’s Public Works Department. The Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department a minimum of 60 days prior to the initiation of construction activities: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips to avoid peak traffic hours, types of vehicles and maximum speed limits for each type of vehicle, expected daily truck trips, staging areas, emergency routes and access, detour signs if required, lane closure Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 70 of 98 procedures, flag person requirements, signs, cones for drivers, a street sweeping plan and designated construction access routes. • Identification of roadways to be used for the movement of construction vehicles to minimize impacts on motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur. Transportation (TRF-2): Construction Routes and Road Maintenance 81. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits and prior to commencement of project construction activities, which would include any construction-related deliveries to the site, the project applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions o f the construction route that would be used by project construction-related vehicles. The project applicant shall also document the construction route road conditions after project construction has been completed. The project applicant shall repair roads that are damaged by construction related activities to County standards and to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. As a security to ensure that damaged roads are adequately repaired, the project applicant shall make an initial monetary deposit, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Public Works, to an account to be used for roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction. If the County must ultimately undertake the road repairs, and repair costs exceed the initial payment, then the project applicant shall pay the additional amount necessary to fully repair the roads to pre-construction conditions. Transportation (TRF-3): Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) 82. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall develop a TDM program for the proposed project, including any anticipated phasing, and shall submit the TDM Program to the County Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval. The TDM Program shall identify trip reduction strategies as well as mechanisms for funding and overseeing the delivery of trip reduction programs and strategies. The TDM Program shall be designed to achieve the trip reduction, as required to reduce the VMT per resident from 20.6 to 16.5, to the extent feasible, consistent with a 20 percent Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 71 of 98 reduction in the near-term. Trip reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to existing and planned pedestrian facilities, nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc. • Bicycle network improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to existing and planned bicycle facilities, nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc. • Enhancements to bus service during peak commute times. • Compliance with a future County VMT/TDM ordinance. • Participation in a future County VMT fee program. Transportation (TRF-4): Palms Drive and Central Avenue Road Improvements 83. Pursuant to timing deemed appropriate by the County and in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project applicant will provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) to improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles (or hazards). Transportation (TRF-6): Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure 84. Pursuant to timing deemed appropriate by the County and in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project applicant shall provide: • Continuous sidewalks on at least one side of Palms Drive and Central Avenue to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian facilities on Arthur Road to improve pedestrian transportation conditions. • Even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to improve bicycle transportation conditions. • Sidewalks for all streets within the project site including facilities on both sides of each street and curb ramps at each street intersection. Transportation (TRF-7): Emergency Vehicle Access 85. Pursuant to timing deemed appropriate by the County and in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project applicant shall provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to accommodate emergency vehicles. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 72 of 98 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ-1): Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) 86. During all phases of construction and grading, the use of construction best management practices shall be implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. These shall include the following: 1) Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; 2) Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; 3) During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; and 4) Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ-2): Accidental Upset – Pipelines 87. The project shall ensure the following fill and excavation parameters are met to reduce the risk of damage to pipelines: 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits and before the commencement of any grading activities, the tops of the five pipelines shall be accurately located on site, and confirmed to be a minimum of 6 feet below the existing ground surface. If it is determined that the any pipeline top is less than six feet below the surface, and will be at risk of impact during proposed grading excavation, one of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: deepening the pipeline, providing mechanical protection such as steel or concrete barriers, or elevating the proposed final road elevation. 2) Maximum fill heights over the Santa Fe Pacific Partners L.P. (“SFPP”); Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P (“KMP”); and Crimson-Chevron KLM (“KLM”) and Chevron pipelines shall exert a calculated stress of more than what the pipelines can safely tolerate, as determined by a professional engineer in accord with applicable industry standards and safety regulations based on observed pipe material and other factors. 3) Prior to final design and construction, a refined analysis of field determined bay mud thickness and bay mud consolidation properties shall be conducted. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 73 of 98 Though not anticipated, if bay mud is found to exert a calculated stress of more than what the pipeline can safely tolerate, as determined by a professional engineer in accord with applicable industry standards and safety regulations based on observed pipe material and other factors, then one or both of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: reduce proposed fill thickness or use lightweight fill such as cellular concrete or Geofoam encasement (or its equivalent). 4) The as-built burial depths of the pipelines and the final proposed subgrade elevations shall result in all pipelines having a minimum burial depth in accord with prevailing regulatory code or pipe owner requirement, whichever is more stringent. If any pipeline does not have a cover in accordance with regulatory minimums, one of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: deepening the pipeline, providing mechanical protection such as steel or concrete barriers, or elevating the proposed final road elevation. Street Names 88. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and private) shall be submitted for review by the Department of Conservation and Development, Graphics Section. Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by CDD without the approved street names. Development Standards, Design and Architecture, Landscape Plans, and Fencing 89. Compliance with the final development plan and design standards, dated August 3, 2021 (“Design Standards”) shall be required for construction of new homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration. The Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the lots, as well as building heights. The Community Development Division (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 shall be included in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD. The architecture elevations and street landscape for the production homes shall provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a visually linear appearance. As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be 5 home plans/designs (1 single-story and 4 two-story homes) with 3 variations for each plan. The Bayview Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 74 of 98 Estates development standards shall generally be as indicated in the August 3, 2021 Design Standards: Maximum heights shall be pursuant those shown in the Design Standards for each home plan/design. 90. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit floor plans and elevations (showing building height) for the models of the production homes for the review and approval of the CDD. The models of the production homes shall comply with the design standards indicated above. 91. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall also submit a fencing plan for the whole of the Bayview Estates Residential Project for the review and approval of the CDD. 92. Prior to recording of the final map, a Final Landscape Plan for the landscaping of common areas of the subdivision shall be submitted for the review and approval of the CDD. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, and must comply with the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or the county’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance if the county’s ordinance has been adopted. 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits and/or building permits for residential development of each lot, a Final Landscape Plan that has been prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the CDD. The plan must comply with the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or the county’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance if the county’s ordinance has been adopted, and shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building permit for that lot. Development Standards Min. Lot Size 6,000 sf Front Setback (House) 15 ft Front Setback (Garage) 20 ft (front access) Front Setback (Garage) 15 ft (side access)(Plan 5) Front Setback (Porch) 10 ft Side Setback 5 ft (10 ft Street side on corner lots) Rear Setback 15 ft Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 75 of 98 Homeowners Association and Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) 94. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map, a homeowners association (HOA) shall be formed for the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all common areas including private streets, common landscaping, drainage and, stormwater control devices. An HOA shall be created and the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) and can be recorded concurrently with the final map. The CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval of the CDD. This document shall provide for the creation of an HOA that is responsible for maintenance of the private streets, drainage, and retaining walls, landscaping/common areas. During long-term operation of the storm drain system, the HOA shall be responsible for hiring a contractor to complete regular maintenance activities, such as de-silting culverts and removing vegetation and debris from storm drain inlets, to assure that facilities are operating at their design capacities and to prevent on-site and downstream drainage/flooding problems. The HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all common subdivision drainage devices and all stormwater treatment facilities required for compliance with Provision C.3 of the county’s Municipal Regional Permit that regulates stormwater discharge. GHAD Annexation/Creation 95. Prior to filing the first Final Map, in addition to other requirements, the Applicant or property owner shall identify an existing Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), or establish a new GHAD for the project to address the prevention, mitigation, abatement, and control of geological hazards in accordance with Public Resources Code section 26500 et seq. (“GHAD Law”). Prior to annexation into an existing GHAD or formation of the new GHAD, a draft “Plan of Control” prepared by a Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the California Business and Professions Code shall be provided to the CDD, which shall contain the contents set forth in Public Resources Code section 26553. Construction Period Requirements and Restrictions 96. Unless specifically approved otherwise via prior authorization from the Zoning Administrator, all construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on State and Federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the State or Federal government as listed below: Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 76 of 98 New Year’s Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington’s Birthday (Federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (State) President’s Day (State) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day (State and Federal) Juneteenth National Independence Holiday (Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day (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: Federal Holidays: www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/federal-holidays/#url=2022 State Holidays: https://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/pages/state-holidays.aspx 97. Transport of heavy equipment and trucks is limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., and is prohibited on weekends and the State and Federal holidays identified above. 98. Contractors and subcontractors shall fit all internal combustion engines on construction equipment with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and generators as far away from existing residences as possible. 99. The project proponents shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 100. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 77 of 98 101. The project proponents shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction and Demolition Debris 102. 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 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. Tree Removal and Replacement 103. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the removal of up to 30 code-protected trees (see also Mitigation Measure BIO-5b): A. Tree Planting and Irrigation Plan: Prior to tree removal, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). The plan shall provide for the restoration or preservation, enhancement, or creation of oak woodland at a ratio of 1:1 (restored/enhanced/preserved area to the impacted area) minimum 15 gallons in size (see Mitigation Measure BIO-5b). The plan shall comply with the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the county’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the county’s ordinance has been adopted, and verification of such shall accompany the plan. The plan shall also include an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor for the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements (accounting for supply, delivery, suitable soil preparation, installation of trees and irrigation). B. Security Bonding to Assure Tree Replacement: The applicant shall submit a security that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall be provided to ensure that the approved planting and irrigation plan is implemented. The Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 78 of 98 security shall be the amount of the approved cost estimate described in Section A. above, plus a 20% inflation surcharge. C. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The county ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees to cover all staff time and material costs for processing the required security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial deposit of $200. D. Duration of Security: When the replacement trees and irrigation have been installed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD, composed by a licensed landscape architect, landscape contractor, or arborist, verifying that the installation has been done in accordance with the approved planting and irrigation plan. The CDD will retain the security for a minimum of 12 months up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. As a prerequisite of releasing the bond (or portions thereof as lot development proceeds) between 12 and 24 months, following completion of the installation, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the replacement trees and to prepare a report on the trees’ health. The report shall be submitted for the review of the CDD and shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the applicant. E. Any replacement tree that dies within the first year of being planted shall be replaced by another tree of the same species and size. If the CDD determines that the applicant has not been diligent in ensuring the replacement trees’ health, then all or part of the security may be used by the County to ensure that the approved restitution plan is successfully implemented. Tree Preservation Requirements for Trees Not to be Removed 104. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity damages trees that are to be preserved, the applicant shall provide the county with a security to allow for replacement of trees that are significantly damaged or destroyed by construction activity. The applicant shall provide a security that is acceptable to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). A. Amount of Security: The security shall be an amount sufficient to cover: Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 79 of 98 i. Preparation of a tree planting and irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the county’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the county’s ordinance has been adopted, and verification of such shall accompany the plan. If applicable, the plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. If all proposed work within the driplines is to be conducted at one time, the estimated cost to prepare the plan shall provide for the planting or replacement trees, minimum 15 gallons in size, or an equivalent planting contribution as determined appropriate by the CDD. If lot development occurs on an individual basis over time, the property owners of individual lots will comply with these tree permit requirements (including Sections A.ii, A.iii, B, and C below) for impacts to those trees to be preserved listed in the June 29, 2016 arborist report for their respective lots. The calculation of the number of replacement trees will then be based on the diameters listed in the June 29, 2016 arborist report, subject to review and approval of the CDD. ii. The estimated materials and labor costs to complete the improvements shown on the approved planting and irrigation plan (accounting for supply, delivery, and installation of trees and irrigation). iii. An additional 20% above the costs described in Sections A.i and A.ii above to account for inflation potential. B. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The County ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees to cover all staff time and material costs for processing the required security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial deposit of $200. C. Duration of Security: After the final building inspection has been completed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD, composed by a consulting arborist, describing any construction impacts to trees intended for preservation. The security shall be retained by the County for a minimum of 12 months up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. As a prerequisite of releasing the bond between 12 and 24 months, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and to prepare a report on the trees’ health. The report shall be submitted to the CDD for review, and it shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 80 of 98 applicant. In the event that the CDD determines that trees intended for preservation have been damaged by development activity, and that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the CDD may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the trees damaged, including replacement of any trees that have died. Arborist Expenses 105. The applicant shall be responsible for all arborist expenses related to the work authorized by this permit. New Tree Permit 106. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving, or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree intended for preservation unless such activities have been approved by the CDD under this Tree Permit. Any tree alteration, removal, or encroachment within a dripline not identified with this permit may require submittal of another Tree Permit application for review and consideration by the CDD. Construction Restrictions Relating to Trees 107. No parking or storage of vehicles, equipment, machinery, or construction materials and no dumping of paints, oils, contaminated water, or any chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be preserved. Construction Timing of the Neighborhood Park 108. The neighborhood park shall be constructed at the mid-point of site development, prior to issuance of the approximately 70th residence permit. Park Dedication and Park Impact Fees 109. Prior to issuance of residential building permits, the applicant is required to comply with the park impact requirements of the County’s Park Dedication Ordinance and shall pay the current Park Impact and Park Dedication fees (see Conditions 9 & 10 above). Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 81 of 98 Community Benefits Agreement 110. The applicant has agreed to enter into a Community Benefits Agreement with the County to fund projects benefiting the community near the project. The agreement will detail the timing and amount of the agreed-upon community benefit payments. Prior to filing of the first final map for the project, the applicant shall provide Department of Conservation and Development staff with evidence that the applicant and County have entered into a Community Benefits Agreement. Trail Access 111. Regional Trial Easement: The applicant shall record an easement in favor of the County, or other public agency named by the County, granting public bicycle and pedestrian access on Central Avenue. The purpose is to enable the public to access a potential future connection to the Iron Horse Trail through a roadway and sidewalk that will be maintained by the HOA. The easement shall be granted before the first Final Map is recorded. 112. Internal Trails: The applicant shall provide internal walking/hiking trail access for Bayview residents for the purpose of accessing the hill within the development for recreational purposes. Hill access trails will be incorporated into the grading design of the drainage/erosion control benches. The applicant shall show the trail access on the grading plans and the plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Division for review prior to approval of site grading permits. Off-Site Street and Sidewalk Improvements 113. Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements Along Arthur Road Connecting to Las Juntas Elementary: The applicant shall design and construct sidewalk and path improvements and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks along Arthur Road and Karen Lane from the intersection of Arthur Road, Leabig Lane and Palms Drive to and including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School (collectively, “Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements”). A more precise description of the scope of the Enhanced Pedestrian improvements is provided in Attachment A to this document. The County will review and approve the project plans to be provided by the applicant. The County will provide the applicant with encroachment permits and all other authorizations necessary for applicant to construct at no charge to the applicant. The applicant will not have to obtain any Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 82 of 98 Right-of-Way, or permits, or any regulatory approvals. Applicant will not have to pay for inspections or secure bonds for these improvements. Applicant will assist the County’s pursuit of any necessary authorizations from Caltrans. The Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 49th home in the project. However, the Director of Conservation and Development may authorize the issuance of additional building permits pending completion of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements if the Director determines, in his or her sole discretion, that the applicant has made and continues to make a good faith effort towards completion of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements and that the delay in completion is not due to fault of the applicant (e.g., delay in County approvals or required Caltrans authorizations). Inclusionary Housing 114. (A.) Inclusionary Housing Agreement: Prior to recording the first Final Map or issuance of the first building or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall enter into an Inclusionary Housing Agreement for the on-site development and sale of five (5) inclusionary housing units affordable to moderate income households. Alternatively, the developer may satisfy this condition of approval, in whole or in part, by payment to the County of an in-lieu fee equal to $100,000 per inclusionary housing unit that the developer elects not to develop and sell on-site. (B.) Inclusionary Housing Plan: At least 120 days prior to filing the first Final Map for recordation or submitting an application for the first building or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit to the County an Inclusionary Housing Plan that includes the information identified in County Ordinance Code Section 822-4.414. The Inclusionary Housing Plan shall include whether the developer will satisfy this condition of approval, in whole or in part, by payment of an in-lieu fee. (C.) Inclusionary Housing Unit Standards: 1) The project is a phased residential development. The Inclusionary Housing Units shall be constructed in proportion to the construction of the market-rate units. The parties agree that the phasing schedule for construction of the Inclusionary Housing Units will be as described in the plan. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 83 of 98 2) The Inclusionary Housing Units must be dispersed throughout the residential project. The parties agree that the Inclusionary Housing Units will be located within the residential project as described in the plan. 3) The Inclusionary Housing Units must have access to all on-site amenities that are available to the market-rate units. 4) The construction quality and exterior design of the Inclusionary Housing Units must be comparable to the market-rate units. However, the Inclusionary Housing Units may be smaller in size, developed on smaller lots, and have alternative interior finishes. (D.) Sale of Inclusionary Housing Units: 1) The developer will sell five (5) Inclusionary Housing Units in a condition meeting the reasonable satisfaction of the County and in accordance with the approved Inclusionary Housing Agreement. 2) The project is a phased residential development. The Inclusionary Housing Units shall be made available for sale in proportion to the sale of the market rate units. The developer may revise the phasing with the written consent of the County. 3) The initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit must be at a price that does not exceed the affordable sales price to a buyer that is a moderate- income household. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum affordable sales price may not exceed the appraised value of the unit. 4) The initial sale of an Inclusionary Housing Unit may occur only to a household that meets the following criteria: • The household is a Moderate Income Household; • The household has not owned a residence within the previous three years; and • The household has no more than $250,000 in assets. This amount excludes assets reserved for a down payment and closing costs, assets in retirement savings accounts, and assets in medical savings accounts. 5) Based on the information provided to the developer by the buyers of the Inclusionary Housing Units, the developer or its third-party designee will determine the income-eligibility of each buyer of an Inclusionary Housing Unit prior to permitting the buyer to purchase and occupy the Inclusionary Housing Unit. The developer will submit a completed Income Certification Form to the County not later than 30 days prior to Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 84 of 98 the close of escrow. The developer will retain all records related to income eligibility for at least five years. 6) Developer may independently source qualified buyers for the Inclusionary Housing Units, determine income-eligibility of such buyers, and complete the Income Certification Form, and/or developer may also hire or utilize one or more third party vendors or brokers to source qualified buyers for the Inclusionary Housing Units, determine income- eligibility of such buyers, and complete the Income Certification Form. If necessary, the County agrees to cooperate with such third parties hired by the developer. 7) Prior to the close of escrow for the initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit, Developer shall ensure that the following documentation is entered into and/or obtained: i. Appraisal. Developer shall require the buyer to obtain and deliver to developer a third party appraisal obtained by the buyer in connection with its financing of the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit (or if no appraisal is required, the buyer shall nevertheless obtain a third party appraisal from a third party appraiser who regularly appraises residential real estate in Contra Costa County for institutional lenders), which appraisal shall set forth the market value of the Inclusionary Housing Unit as if the Inclusionary Housing Unit were unencumbered by this Agreement (the "Appraised Market Value"). The Appraised Market Value shall be used in connection with the calculation of amounts payable to the County under the resale restriction and memorialized by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust. ii. Resale Restriction. Developer shall ensure that the County and the buyer execute, acknowledge, and deposit into escrow for recordation against the Inclusionary Housing Unit a resale restriction. The resale restriction shall record immediately after the grant deed conveying the Inclusionary Housing Unit and before any deed of trust or other instrument securing any financing to the buyer. iii. Promissory Note. Developer shall require the buyer to execute a promissory note in favor of the County that obligates the buyer to pay the County the amount required under Section 822-4.410(b)(3) Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 85 of 98 of the Ordinance. The promissory note will be subject to County's reasonable review and approval. iv. Deed of Trust. Developer shall ensure that the County and the buyer execute, acknowledge, and deposit into escrow for recordation against the Inclusionary Housing Unit a deed of trust to secure performance of the buyer's covenants under the resale restriction and payment of the amounts due under the promissory note. The deed of trust shall record immediately after the grant deed conveying the Inclusionary Housing Unit and concurrent with the resale restriction, subordinate only to the lien for the first mortgage loan obtained by the buyer to finance the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit. (E.) Inclusionary Housing Unit Restrictions: 1) In accordance with County Ordinance Code section 822-4.410(b), Inclusionary Housing Units must remain affordable to moderate income households for the term of affordability. Upon the initial sale of each Inclusionary Housing Unit, the developer will cause agreements to be recorded in the official records against the Inclusionary Housing Unit. The agreements will stipulate that the Inclusionary Housing Units are to remain affordable to moderate income households for the term of affordability of not less than 55 years. Each recorded agreement will be a covenant running with the land, binding on the assigns, heirs, and successors of the developer during the term of the resale restriction. 2) The buyer's first mortgage amount may not exceed the amount needed to finance the purchase of the Inclusionary Housing Unit and the buyer's closing costs. The buyer may not refinance any other debt or receive funds at the close of escrow, except to reimburse the buyer for overpayment of estimated buyer closing costs. 3) The initial purchaser of each Inclusionary Housing Unit must agree to occupy the unit as their principal residence for at least three years unless an emergency requires the earlier sale of the unit. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 86 of 98 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION CDSD04-08809 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN CDDP04-03080 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 vesting tentative map prepared by Isakson & Associates dated September 25, 2020. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements 115. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Isakson & Associates dated September 25, 2020 excepting as noted below. 116. Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (On-Site) 117. Although the on-site streets will likely remain private, there is the possibility they could become public streets. With that goal in mind, all on-site roads are to be constructed to County public road standards, including, but not limited to pavement structural sections, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, drainage conveyance and treatment infrastructure, signage and pavement markings. Typical roadway sections and related grading require hinge points for fill or embankment to be located at or beyond the right of way line. Exceptions Exceptions from Sections 98-4.002 (Minimum Requirements) 92-4.012 (Collector Street) and 92-4.056 (Minor Street) relative to roadway classification and related pavement and right of way widths will be allowed provided they meet the configurations shown on the referenced Vesting Tentative Map with the Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 87 of 98 exception of the 44-foot right of way section shown. This right of way should be 46 feet in width to provide a 2-foot buffer to the back of sidewalk. Internal subdivision streets shall remain private and cannot be accepted by the County as public streets until improvement and dedication of the private road portions of Palms Drive or Central Avenue are accepted by the County. Roadway Improvements (Off-Site) 118. The applicant shall widen, construct, or re-construct Palms Drive and Central Avenue to County public roads standards. In the case of Central Avenue, off-site improvements shall extend from the subdivision boundary westerly to conform to the end of the existing curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet east of Darcie Way. Palms Drive improvements shall extend from the submission boundary westerly to Arthur Road. These roads shall have a minimum 28-foot travelway, curbs, a five foot-wide sidewalk along at least one continuous side of the street, drainage conveyance and treatment infrastructure, street lights, signage and pavement markings. Opportunities to enhance bicycle and pedestrian use of these roads shall be considered, subject to review and approval of Public Works and Conservation and Development. 119. Any cracked and displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced along the frontages of Palms Drive and Central Avenue, or Arthur Road. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access. 120. Applicant shall furnish proof to the 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. 121. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department that legal access to the property is available from Palms Drive and Central Avenue. 122. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department that legal access to the adjacent parcels between the subdivision and Contra Costa Canal (APN 380- 043-003, 006 & 007) is available from Palms Drive, Central Avenue, or a public Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 88 of 98 street. If no such easements exist, the applicant shall take measures to assure said adjacent parcels are not “land-locked” by the subdivision. 123. Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, for construction of any necessary off-site improvements within the County maintained right-of-way of Central Avenue, Arthur Road or other public streets. 124. Abutter’s Rights. Abutter’s rights of access along the secondary frontage of corner lots shall be prohibited in the subdivision’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). In the event the streets are conveyed to the County as public rights of way, the abutter’s rights of access to these secondary frontages shall be relinquished as a condition of acceptance by the County. Right of Way Easements and Dedications 125. Property Owner shall dedicate Private Access Easements in favor of the subdivision lots over all on-site streets. 126. At the Property Owner’s option, the subdivision streets may be dedicated to the County for public access, but the County will not accept this dedication without first having public street access up to the actual subdivision. If dedicated at this time, the offer of dedication shall be by separate instrument, not on the Final Map. The street rights of way shall remain as separate entities, i.e. do not extend fronting lot lines to the center of the street. 127. Property Owner shall dedicate Public Utility Easements over all proposed streets and 5 feet beyond as shown on the street typical sections pursuant to the Vesting Tentative Map. Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance Sight Distance. 128. Provide sight distance along all streets based on a design speed of 30 miles per hour. 129. The applicant shall submit a preliminary improvement plan and profile to the Public Works Department for review showing all required improvements to the Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 89 of 98 offsite roadways (Palms Drive and Central Avenue). The preliminary plan shall be to scale, show horizontal and vertical alignments, transitions, curb lines, lane striping and cross sections and shall provide sight distance for a design speed of 30 miles per hour. The plan shall extend a minimum of 175-feet beyond the proposed limits of the work. Traffic and Transportation Mitigation and Fee Credits 130. The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or reimbursements against Area of Benefit Fees adopted by County Ordinance. 131. Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM). Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall develop a TDM program and submit said Program to the County Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval. This program could include off-site improvements, the construction of which may be subject to further permitting and review by Public Works. As a potential stake-holder in the implementation of this Program, the applicant and DCD shall include Public Works in the review and approval process where applicable (see Mitigation Measure TRF-3). Countywide Street Light Financing 132. Property Owner shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Landscaping 133. All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner or homeowner’s association shall be submitted to the Community Development Division for review and approval. Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities 134. Pedestrian Access. 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. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 90 of 98 Parking 135. Parking shall be prohibited on 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” signage and/or markings shall be installed along these portions of the roads subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Marshal. In the event the streets are conveyed to the County as public rights of way, parking restrictions will be subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. Utilities/Undergrounding 136. Applicant shall underground all new and existing on-site utility distribution facilities, including those along the subdivision frontage of Central Avenue. 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 137. The project applicant and construction contractor(s) shall develop and submit a Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan for the review and approval of the County’s Public Works Department. The Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department a minimum of 60 days prior to the initiation of construction activities: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips to avoid peak traffic hours, types of vehicles and maximum speed limits for each type of vehicle, expected daily truck trips, staging areas, emergency routes and access, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, flag person requirements, signs, cones for drivers, a street sweeping plan and designated construction access routes. • Identification of roadways to be used for the movement of construction vehicles to minimize impacts on motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 91 of 98 • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur (see Mitigation Measure TRF-1). 138. Prior to commencement of project construction activities, which would include any construction-related deliveries to the site, the project applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by project construction-related vehicles. The project applicant shall also document the construction route road conditions after project construction has been completed. The project applicant shall repair roads that are damaged by construction related activities to County standards and to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. To ensure that damaged roads are adequately repaired, the project applicant shall include line items for roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Public Works, in the overall project estimate of improvements. Said improvements shall be secured by the project’s Subdivision Agreement along with the requisite cash deposit and surety bonds. Substituent agreements and cash/bond releases for partially completed improvements will not be considered until all off-site road repairs have been accepted as complete by the County (see Mitigation Measure TRF-2). Maintenance of Facilities 139. Property Owner shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement or Homeowner’s Association that will insure that the proposed private road and street lights will be maintained, and that each parcel/lot in this subdivision that will use the proposed private road and street lights will share in its maintenance. 140. The maintenance obligation of all common and open space areas, private roadways, any private street lights, public and private landscaped areas, parks, open space, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The language shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 92 of 98 141. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Applicant shall verify the adequacy of any downstream drainage facility accepting stormwater from this project prior to discharging runoff. If the downstream system is inadequate to handle the existing plus project stormwater runoff for the design storm, improvements shall be constructed to make the system adequate. The applicant shall obtain access rights to make any necessary improvements to off-site facilities. 142. Preliminary design of the proposed detention/stormwater management basin requires additional refinement that may have impacts on the basin’s performance, specifically: • Prior to accepting the basin configuration, owner shall submit a geotechnical report signed and stamped by a registered geotechnical engineer that demonstrates that the through seepage, under seepage, oversaturated soil conditions and steep levee side slope will not impact the basin embankment. • Owner shall submit for County for review a geotechnical report, signed and stamped by a registered geotechnical engineer, substantiating the stability of the steep 2:1 slope embankment on the eastern side of the development, along Drive “C” (and bioretention basin), and adjacent to wetlands in an area prone to flooding. 143. The applicant shall insure the maintenance of the detention/stormwater management basin through either an existing public maintenance entity or by the creation of a public maintenance entity. The entity shall have an adequate revenue source to assure perpetual maintenance. Exceptions An exception from Section 914-12.010 (Detention Basins – Maintenance) is granted to allow the detention/stormwater management basin to be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association or equivalent private entity with property lien authority. Maintenance practices, procedures and responsibilities of the stormwater detention aspects of this dual-function basin shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 93 of 98 Maintenance Plan and related Agreement prepared for compliance with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 144. The applicant shall not discharge stormwater into the Contra Costa Canal or any other water conveyance or impounding facility for domestic water consumption. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 145. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 146. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 147. 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 drain lines traversing private lots within the subdivision. 148. Construct new maintenance roads for use by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) to provide access to the District’s property east of the subdivision as shown on the approved Vesting Tentative Map. Alignment and specifications for this replacement road are to be to CCCFCD standards and subject to their review and approval. 149. Convey to the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, by separate instrument, access easements with minimum widths as shown on the approved Vesting Tentative Map over the new maintenance roads (above). Floodplain Management 150. A portion of the project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA – the 100 year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (Federal) and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 151. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA for review and approval of the anticipated changes to the mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas that will result from the construction of the subdivision. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 94 of 98 152. For any phase of construction located within a currently designated SFHA, after completion of finish grading and lot pad certification, but prior to issuance of Building Permits within that subdivision phase, the applicant shall prepare and submit an application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA for review and approval to formally remove all proposed home sites from the mapped SFHA. Creek Structure Setbacks 153. Unless otherwise designated for “Open Space” or protected by a levee, the applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over those portions of the site within the structure setback area of Pacheco Creek and Vine Hill Creek. The structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914 14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. 154. Hold Harmless. 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. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 155. 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 (San Francisco Bay - Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stormwater 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 stormwater drainage: • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 95 of 98 Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • 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. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance 156. The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Stormwater 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 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final Stormwater 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. 157. 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 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014). 158. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to inspection by the Public Works Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management facilities shall be borne by the applicant. 159. Prior to filing of the first final map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard Stormwater 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 stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 96 of 98 160. In addition to maintenance of routine stormwater management and treatment facilities, per Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Terraced Slopes/Drainage, Owner shall ensure routine inspections and maintenance of terraced slopes conducted by qualified professionals. Maintenance measures shall include maintaining vegetative cover of exposed slopes upland of the proposed development after construction, for the operational life of the project, consistent with the provisions of the project's SWPPP, as identified in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. Drainage conveyances on the cut terraces shall be maintained to ensure a minimum of 85 percent of total conveyance capacity, as specified in the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Any evidence of gulley or rill erosional effects shall be remedied immediately by the project applicant through additional hydroseeding or other industry standard measures and best practices for erosion control. 161. Prior to filing of the first final map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property owners. 162. 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. 163. All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, stormwater generated from each phase constructed. Drainage Area Fee Ordinance 164. The applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors prior to initiation of the use requested with this application. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 97 of 98 ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the following agencies and departments; the applicant is strongly encouraged to review these agencies’ requirements prior to continuing with the project: • Contra Costa County, Building Inspection Division • Contra Costa County, Public Works Department • Contra Costa County, Flood Control District • Contra Costa County Fire Protection District • Contra Costa County, Health Services, Environmental Health Division • Contra Costa Water District • Mt. View Sanitary District • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • United States Army Corps of Engineers • United States Fish & Wildlife Service C. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. D. 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. Bayview Estates Residential Project CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 98 of 98 E. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. F. There are earthen levees on each side of Pacheco Creek where the applicant had previously proposed a water line to cross the flood control channel. The Contra Costa County Flood Control District (FC District) is concerned that any excavation or grading on or near the levees might undermine their structural integrity. The applicant should be aware that a Flood Control Permit is required for any work within FC District property. Furthermore, to maintain the structural integrity of the levees, the FC District will not allow any trenching or excavation on or near the levees or its’ footings. G. Although the Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) 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 stormwater 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. 18490391.1 ATTACHMENT A Preliminary Scope of Work ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS (Component of Safe Route to School Program) The applicant shall design and construct sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements along Arthur Road (on both sides, where feasible) and Karen Lane, from the intersection of Arthur Road, Leabig Lane and Palms Drive to and including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School including but not limited to: 1. Enhanced pedestrian intersection improvements at the intersection of Arthur Road and Karen Lane, which may include bulb-outs, raised crosswalks(1), and/or RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Repeating Flashing Beacon). (There is currently a yellow crosswalk at the intersection.) 2. Continuous pedestrian infrastructure or gap closures along the east side of Arthur Road and the west side, where feasible. a. A priority segment would be Arthur Road between Palms Drive/Leabig Lane and the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church/Amalia Avenue. b. In addition to Arthur Road/Karen Lane crossing, an additional enhanced crosswalk (with curb ramps, bulb-outs, raised crosswalk, and/or flashing beacons) will be constructed somewhere along Arthur Road to provide another opportunity for pedestrians to get from the east side of Arthur Road (assuming continuous sidewalk is not practical on the entire segment) to the west side of Arthur Road, where there will be continuous sidewalk. Public Works shall approve the design and location of additional potential mid-block crosswalks and any other pedestrian or traffic calming improvements. c. Any cracked and displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced along both sides of Arthur Road and on both sides of Karen Lane from the school entry to Arthur Road. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. 3. The pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary will be reconstructed to County or other applicable standards. 4. The County and applicant (or applicants contractor) will collaborate in any necessary consultation with Caltrans relative to improvements at the I-680 on/off ramps on Arthur Road. APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES: o 1,180lf of new sidewalk o 1,725lf of removed and replaced sidewalk o 27 driveways averaging 22’ wide o 7 pairs of added or replaced curb ramps o Two enhanced crosswalks – raised with RRFB 18490391.1 o 520sf of reconstructed pathway Additional conditions: • County supplies/obtains all permits (or assist in obtaining Caltrans permits as needed) and inspections (including all discretionary and non-discretionary approvals). • No requirement to obtain ROW (if ROW is required, County will obtain). • Includes demolition and disposal. • Includes traffic control. • Includes raising valve boxes if within sidewalk. • No relocation of poles, unless required for minimum sidewalk width. • No relocation of services. • New concrete sidewalk per County standard and C&G, where there is none. • R&R existing but damaged sidewalk, C&G. • Narrow sidewalk to 3' if existing landscape is encroaching (sidewalk on other side). (Leave existing landscaping if in road ROW to accommodate 5ft sidewalks.) • No sidewalk if tree or hardscape encroachment prevents installation; unless installation can be reasonably accommodated depending on situational factors at site of the landscape or hardscape. (1) Design consistent with: National Association of City Transportation Officials: Urban Street Design Guide: Speed Table: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street- design-elements/vertical-speed-control-elements/speed-table/ SCALE: 1"=80'MAP TO EXHIBIT APRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORKRECONSTRUCT PATHWAY TO COUNTY OROTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS.EX. SDWK BOTH SIDES(≈330LF)EX. SDWK(≈1130LF)NO SDWK(≈50LF)EX. SDWK(≈800LF)NO SDWK(≈510LF)EX. SDWK(≈190LF)NO SDWK(≈180LF)NO SDWK(≈160LF)NO SDWK(≈280LF)EX. SDWK(≈130LF)EX. SDWK(≈540LF)ENHANCE PEDESTRIANINTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTSENHANCED CROSSWALK Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 1 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification 4.1 Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: The Project shall incorporate into all construction contracts and ensure implementation of the following measures: 1. To the extent feasible, during all site preparation and exterior construction activities, a screened security fence shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the Project site abutting residential areas. Visual screening along Central Avenue and bordering the perimeter of the property abutting residential areas shall be placed and maintained and removed upon completion of construction work. The County shall determine the appropriate height, material and final placement of such fencing, as appropriate and effective given the relative change in elevation and viewpoints to the site. 2. Construction staging areas shall be located in the interior of the Project site, away from the property boundary and remain clear of all trash, weeds and debris etc. Construction staging areas may include other areas of the Project site when necessary, but shall be located away from adjacent properties and I-680 to minimize visibility from public view to the extent feasible. Preparation of construction contracts. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Review and approval of construction contracts. Review of plans for screened security fence, Central Avenue visual screen, and construction staging areas. 4.2 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Best Management Practices for Controlling Particulate Emissions. The Project applicant shall implement the following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for particulate control. These measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved areas. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be Implementation of BMPs. Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Verify implementation and compliance with BMPs. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 2 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. 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, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 3 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures. The applicant shall implement the following measures during construction to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions: All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements: 1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited; and 2. All off-road equipment shall have: a. Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards, and b. Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such are available. Implementation of Enhanced Measures. Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Review and verify implementation and compliance with enhanced measures. 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoidance and Minimization for Impacts to Special-Status Plants. A qualified botanist with a minimum of four years of academic training and professional experience in botanical sciences and a minimum of two years of experience conducting rare plant surveys shall conduct appropriately timed surveys (i.e., floristic preconstruction surveys) for special-status plant species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project site (i.e., Bolander’s water hemlock, soft bird’s-beak, Mason’s lilaeopsis, Congdon’s tarplant, small spikerush, fragrant fritillary, delta tule pea, delta mudwort, and Suisun Marsh aster) in all suitable habitat that would be potentially disturbed by the Project. 1) If no special-status plants are found during focused surveys, the botanist shall document the findings of found species in a letter to CDFW and the County, and no further mitigation will be required. 2) If special-status plants are found during focused surveys, the following measures shall be implemented: a) Information regarding the special-status plant populations shall be Conduct floristic pre-construction surveys. Submittal of survey findings letter or reports; coordination or consultation with regulatory agencies. Within 3 years prior to initiating ground disturbance at the site. Upon completion of focused surveys. DCD DCD and CFDW, CNDDB, USFWS, as applicable. Review and approve survey findings. Review and approve letter or reports. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 4 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification reported to the CNDDB, mapped, and documented in a technical memorandum provided to the County. b) If federally or state listed species are identified during floristic preconstruction surveys, the Project proponent shall mark these plants for avoidance and comply with applicable laws (i.e., the federal and State Endangered Species Acts) including through coordination or consultation with regulatory agencies (i.e., USFWS and/or CDFW), as appropriate, and as described in items d and e, below. c) If other special-status plant populations (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranked or locally significant plants) are identified during floristic preconstruction surveys and can be avoided during project implementation, they shall be clearly marked in the field by a qualified botanist and avoided during construction activities. If a Rank 3 or Rank 4 plant species is detected during the survey, the survey report shall analyze species rarity consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380) to determine if species protection is warranted. If the plants do not warrant protection, then no further action is needed for these species. d) If special-status plant populations are identified and cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall coordinate or consult with the County and regulatory agencies, as appropriate, on relocation of special-status plants. To the extent feasible, special-status plants that would be impacted by the Project shall be relocated within local suitable habitat. This can be done either through salvage and transplanting or by collection and propagation of seeds or other vegetative material. Any plant relocation or reintroduction through seeds or other vegetative material would be done under the supervision of a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist. e) If rare plants can be avoided, prior to vegetation removal, ground clearing or ground disturbance, all on-site construction personnel shall be instructed as to the species’ presence and the importance of avoiding impacts to rare plant species and their habitat though the Worker Environmental Awareness Program training (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2a, below). f) The Project proponent shall prepare a Rare Plant Relocation/Reintroduction and Monitoring Plan for relocated or reintroduced special-status plants which shall detail relocation or reintroduction methods or appropriate replacement ratios (e.g., at least 1:1 based on number of relocated plants or the area occupied by rare plants, as appropriate for the species) and methods for Prepare Rare Plant Relocation/Reint roduction and Monitoring Plan Upon completion of focused surveys. Same as above. Same as above. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 5 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification implementation (e.g., planting methods, need for supplemental irrigation, or weed control), success criteria (e.g., greater than 70% survival or ground coverage following 5 years), monitoring and reporting protocols, and contingency measures that shall be implemented if the initial mitigation fails (e.g., replanting to achieve success criteria). The plan shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate agencies prior to the start of local construction ac tivities with the objective of providing equal or better habitat and populations than the impacted area(s). The County shall approve the plan. g) If special-status plants are relocated from the Project or reintroduction of plants or seed is implemented, the Project proponent shall maintain and monitor the relocation sites and/or restored areas for 5 years following the completion of construction and restoration activities. The Project proponent shall submit monitoring reports to the County at the completion of restoration and for 5 years following restoration implementation. Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the mitigation plan. Maintenance, monitoring and monitoring reports. At the completion of restoration and for 5 years following restoration implementation. Same as above. Same as above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. A Project-specific Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training shall be developed and implemented by a qualified biologist for the Project and attended by all construction personnel prior to beginning work onsite. Typical credentials for a qualified biologist include a minimum of four years of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, and a minimum of two years of experience conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the Project area. The training could consist of a recorded presentation that could be reused for new personnel. The WEAP training shall generally address but not be limited to the following: 1) Applicable State and federal laws, environmental regulations, project permit conditions, and penalties for non-compliance; 2) Special-status plant and animal species with potential to occur at or in the vicinity of the Project site, their habitat, the importance of these species and their habitat, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the Project, and the boundaries within which the project construction shall occur, avoidance measures, and a protocol for encountering such species including a communication chain; Prepare/ Implement WEAP Training. Prior to beginning any work onsite. DCD Confirm completion of training. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 6 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification 3) Pre-construction surveys associated with each phase of work; 4) Known sensitive resource areas in the Project vicinity that are to be avoided and/or protected as well as approved Project work areas; and 5) Best management practices (BMPs) and their location on the Project site for erosion control and/or species exclusion. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: General Conservation Measures during Construction. The County shall ensure that the following general measures are implemented by the contractor during construction to prevent and minimize impacts on special-status species and sensitive biological resources: 1) Ground disturbance and construction footprints will be minimized to the greatest degree feasible. 2) Project-related Vehicles shall observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit within the Project site. 3) The contractor shall provide closed garbage containers for the disposal of all food-related trash items. All garbage shall be collected daily from the Project site and placed in a closed container from which garbage shall be removed weekly. Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract fish or wildlife to the Project site. 4) As necessary, erosion control measures shall be implemented to prevent any soil or other materials from entering any nearby aquatic habitat. Erosion control measures shall be installed at work site boundaries adjacent to aquatic habitat to prevent soil from eroding or falling into the area. 5) Erosion control measures shall be implemented as described in the Project SWPPP. Sediment control measures shall be furnished, constructed, maintained, and later removed. Plastic monofilament of any kind (including those labeled as biodegradable, photodegradable, or UV-degradable) shall not be used. Only natural burlap, coir, or jute wrapped fiber rolls that are certified weed-free shall be used. 6) All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and equipment and the location of Project staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from any aquatic habitat and associated freshwater and saltmarsh vegetation. Spill kits containing cleanup materials shall be available on-site. 7) No equipment used in support of Project implementation (e.g. excavator) shall enter or cross waters in the Project area while water Implementation of Conservation Measures. Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Implementation of construction measures. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 7 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification is flowing. 8) Project personnel shall be required to report immediately any harm, injury, or mortality of a listed species (federal or state) during construction, including entrapment, to the construction foreman, qualified biologist, or County staff. The County or their consultant shall provide verbal notification to the USFWS Endangered Species Office in Sacramento, California, and/or to the local CDFW warden or biologist (as applicable) within 1 working day of the incident. The County or their consultant shall follow up with written notification to the appropriate agencies within 5 working days of the incident. All special-status species observations shall be recorded on California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) field sheets/IPaC and sent to the CDFW/USFWS and by County staff or their consultant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Avoidance, Minimization, and Protection Measures for Sensitive Amphibians and Reptiles. The following conservation measures shall be implemented to minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts on California red-legged frog (CRLF)and western pond turtle (WPT) during Project construction: 1) Consistent with the USFWS California Red-legged Frog Survey Protocol, a habitat assessment shall be prepared and submitted to the USFWS to support their determination of the species’ potential to occur on site. If the USFWS agrees that the habitat assessment establishes species absence, or if subsequent protocol-level surveys requested by the USFWS following their review of the habitat assessment establish species absence, then no further action shall be needed to protect this species. In the absence of USFWS coordination, CRLF shall be presumed present within suitable aquatic habitat on the site and protective measures described below shall be followed. 2) A qualified biologist shall survey the work sites within 5 calendar days prior to the onset of construction for CRLF and WPT to determine presence (and life stage) of these species on the Project site. Additionally, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of Project aquatic habitat for CRLF and WPT immediately prior to the start of construction activities, beginning with installation of exclusion fencing (see 3, below). The surveys will consist of walking the Project work limits adjacent to areas where natural habitat is present to ascertain presence of these species (e.g., grasslands adjacent to suitable aquatic habitat within the Project Implement conservation measures: Prior to any construction activity. Upon submittal of habitat assessment. DCD, USFWS and CDFW, as applicable. Review and approve/confirm surveys/habitat assessment and implementation and compliance with all measures (e.g., relocation, fencing). Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 8 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification site). 3) Prior to conducting preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for WPT and identifies nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities. The animal shall be relocated to equivalent or better WPT habitat relative to where it was found. 4) A qualified biologist shall monitor installation of exclusion fencing (see 4, below) to identify, capture, and relocate WPT if found, and halt or observe work in the vicinity of CRLF if encountered onsite. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop construction activities proximate to these species and develop alternative work practices, in consultation with construction personnel and resource agencies (as appropriate), if construction activities are likely to affect special‐status species or other sensitive biological resources. Unless explicitly authorized by the USFWS (e.g., through issuance of a Biological Opinion, CRLF shall not be relocated if encountered within the Project site. Rather CRLF shall be allowed to disperse of their own volition while all work is halted within 50 feet of individuals. If a CRLF is not dispersing on its own volition, the qualified biologist shall monitor the frog while exclusion fence installation or other work continues, as long as they can ensure the safety of the frog. The qualified biologist shall immediately inform the construction manager that work should be halted or modified (in the case of a buffer or non- dispersing individual), if necessary, to avert avoidable take of listed species. Should egg masses, metamorphs, or tadpoles of CRLF be identified within Project site aquatic habitat during these initial surveys or at any time during Project construction, the USFWS shall be contacted prior to continuation of work near the discovery. If WPT and/or CRLF are not observed during pre-construction surveys or installation of the exclusion fence, continued biological monitoring during construction is not necessary. If either of these species are observed onsite at any time, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with USFWS and /or CDFW as necessary to determine the appropriate measures to avoid species’ take. 5) The Project Applicant or its contractors shall install temporary exclusion fencing around key project boundaries (i.e., at the work Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 9 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Timing of Verification Responsible Department or Agency Compliance Verification limit of aquatic habitat and associated marsh vegetation to be preserved under the Project) and around all staging and laydown areas to exclude CRLF and WPT from Project construction activities. • Fencing shall be installed immediately prior to the start of construction activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. • The Project Applicant or their contractor shall ensure that the temporary exclusion fencing is continuously maintained until all Project construction activities are completed. Daily fence inspections shall be conducted by the qualified biologist during the first week of construction. Thereafter, the qualified biologist may train the contractor to conduct regular inspections and coordinate findings with the qualified biologist. Similarly, vehicles or equipment parked overnight at the Project staging areas or work areas shall be inspected for harboring species each morning by the qualified biologist (or the trained contractor) before they are moved. • The wildlife exclusion fencing shall be a minimum height of 3 feet above ground surface, with an additional 4 to 6 inches of fence material buried such that animals cannot burrow under the fence. • The exclusion fence shall not cross the marsh associated with Pacheco Creek along the south edge of the site or bisect marsh vegetation to allow wildlife movement to continue through these areas when work is not occurring. 6) All onsite excavations of a depth of 8 inches or greater shall be either backfilled at the end of each workday, covered with heavy metal plates, or escape ramps shall be installed at a 3:1 grade to allow wildlife that fall in a means to escape. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 10 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Nesting Bird Protection Measures. 1) Project staging, project construction, vegetation removal (e.g., clearing and grubbing), vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, or tree trimming shall be performed outside of the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; if these activities must be performed during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-construction survey in the project construction and staging areas for nesting birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities or after any construction breaks of 5 calendar days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the project construction and staging areas and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the project construction and staging areas in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 500 feet of the project construction and staging areas to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nest. If nesting birds and raptors do not occur within 250 and 500 feet of the Project area, respectively, then no further action is required if construction begins within 5 calendar days. 2) If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, no- disturbance buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist. Typically, these buffer distances are between 50 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity and if an obstruction, such as a building or structure, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. Reduced buffers may be allowed if a full-time qualified biologist is present to monitor the nest and has authority to halt construction if bird behavior indicates continued activities could lead to nest failure. Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction-related activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. . Pre-construction surveys. Prior to staging, vegetation removal/management, and construction activity during bird nesting season. DCD Implementation of all measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail. To minimize or avoid the loss of individual California black rail and Ridgway’s rail, construction activities, including vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, adjacent to tidal marsh areas (within 500 feet [150 meters] or a distance determined in coordination with USFWS or CDFW, shall be avoided during the breeding season from February 1 through August 31. Pre-construction surveys. Prior to construction activity during specified period of peak detectability of rail breeding season. DCD and USFWS or CDFW Confirm protocol-level surveys conducted and implementation of any established vegetation measures. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 11 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 • If areas within or adjacent to rail habitat cannot be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), protocol-level surveys shall be conducted to determine rail nesting locations. The surveys will focus on potential habitat that could be disturbed by construction activities during the breeding season to ensure that rails are not breeding in these locations. Survey methods for rails will follow the Site-Specific Protocol for Monitoring Marsh Birds, which was developed for use by USFWS and partners to improve bay-wide monitoring accuracy by standardizing surveys and increasing the ability to share data (Wood et al. 2017). Surveys are conducted during the approximate period of peak detectability, January 15 to March 25 and are structured to efficiently sample an area in three rounds of surveys by broadcasting calls of target species during specific periods of each survey round. Call broadcasting increases the probability of detection compared to passive surveys when no call broadcasting is employed. This protocol has since been adopted by Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) and Point Blue Conservation Science to survey Ridgway’s rails at sites throughout San Francisco Bay Estuary. The survey protocol for Ridgway’s rail is summarized below. − Previously used survey locations (points) should be used when available to maintain consistency with past survey results. New survey points should be at least 200 meters apart along transects in or adjacent to areas representative of potentially suitable marsh habitat. Points should be located to minimize disturbances to marsh vegetation. Up to 8 points can be located on a transect. − At each transect, three surveys (rounds) are to be conducted, with the first round of surveys initiated between January 15 and February 6, the second round performed February 7 to February 28, and the third round March 1 to March 25. Surveys should be spaced at least one week apart and the period between March 25 to April 15 can be used to complete surveys delayed by logistical or weather issues. A Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required to conduct active surveys. − Each point on a transect will be surveyed for 10 minutes each round. A recording of calls available from USFWS is broadcast at each point. The recording consists of 5 minutes of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of Ridgway’s rail vocalizations, followed by 30 seconds of silence, followed Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 12 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 by a 30-second recording of California black rail, followed by 3.5 minutes of silence. • If no breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are detected during surveys, or if their breeding territories can be avoided by 500 feet (150 meters), then Project activities may proceed at that location. • If protocol surveys determine that breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are present in the Project area, the following measures would apply to project activities conducted during their breeding season (February 1- August 31): − A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with experience recognizing Ridgway’s rail and black rail vocalizations will be on site during construction activities occurring within 500 feet (150 meters) of suitable rail breeding habitat. − If a Ridgway’s rail or black rail vocalizes or flushes within 10 meters, it is possible that a nest or young are nearby. If an alarmed bird or nest is detected, work will be stopped, and workers will leave the immediate area carefully and quickly. An alternate route will be selected that avoids this area, and the location of the sighting will be recorded to inform future activities in the area. − All crews working within 500 feet of aquatic habitats during rail breeding season will be trained and supervised by a USFWS- and CDFW-approved rail biologist. − If any activities will be conducted during the rail breeding season in Ridgway’s rail- or black rail-occupied marshes, biologists will have maps or GPS locations of the most current occurrences on the site and will proceed cautiously and minimize time spent in areas where rails were detected. • For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rail or black rail, the following measures will be implemented: − Any herbicides to be used will be EPA-certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. − Vegetation management activities will be limited to areas outside of tidal marsh and non-tidal pickleweed marsh habitats. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 13 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure BIO-4a: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. • A USFWS and CDFW-approved biologist, with knowledge of and experience with salt marsh harvest mouse habitat requirements, will conduct pre-construction surveys for the species and identify and mark suitable salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat prior to Project initiation. • Ground disturbance to suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (including, but not limited to pickleweed, and emergent salt marsh vegetation including bulrush and cattails) will be avoided to the extent feasible. Where salt marsh harvest mouse habitat cannot be avoided - such as for channel excavation, access routes and grading, or anywhere else that vegetation could be trampled or crushed by work activities - vegetation will be removed from the ground disturbance work area plus a 10-foot buffer around the area, as well as any access routes within salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, utilizing mechanized hand tools or by another method approved by the USFWS and CDFW. Vegetation height shall be maintained at or below 5 inches above ground. Vegetation removal in salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be conducted under the supervision of the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist. • To protect salt marsh harvest mouse from construction-related traffic, access roads, haul routes, and staging areas within 200 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be bordered by temporary exclusion fencing. The fence should be made of a smooth material that does not allow salt marsh harvest mouse to climb or pass through, of a minimum above-ground height of 30 inches, and the bottom should be buried to a depth of at least 6 inches so that mice cannot crawl under the fence. Any supports for the salt marsh harvest mouse exclusion fencing (e.g., t-posts) will be placed on the inside of the project area. The last 5 feet of the fence shall be angled away from the road to direct wildlife away from the road. A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse experience will be on site during fence installation and will check the fence alignment prior to vegetation clearing and fence installation to ensure no salt marsh harvest mice are present. • All construction equipment and materials will be staged on existing roadways and away from suitable wetland habitats when not in use. • Vegetation shall be removed from all non-marsh areas of disturbance (driving roads, grading and stockpiling areas) to discourage presence Pre-construction surveys. Avoidance or vegetation removal On-site Monitoring. Upon completion of surveys conducted prior to any ground disturbance activity. During all construction activity During construction activities occurring in suitable habitat. DCD and USFWS or CDFW Same as above. Same as above. Confirm protocol-level surveys conducted and implementation of any applicable vegetation measures. Same as above. Same as above. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 14 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 of salt marsh harvest mouse. • A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience will be on site during construction activities occurring in suitable habitat. The biologist will document compliance with the project permit conditions and avoidance and conservation measures. The USFWS-and CDFW- approved biologist has the authority to stop project activities if any of the requirements associated with these measures is not being fulfilled. If salt marsh harvest mouse is observed in the work area, construction activities will cease in the immediate vicinity of the salt marsh harvest mouse. The individual will be allowed to leave the area before work is resumed. If the individual does not move on its own volition, the USFWS-approved biologist would contact USFWS (and CDFW if appropriate) for further guidance on how to proceed. • If the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has requested work stoppage because of take of any of the listed species, or if a dead or injured salt marsh harvest mouse is observed, the USFWS and CDFW will be notified within one day by email or telephone. • For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse, the following measures shall be implemented: − Any herbicides to be used will be EPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. − Work in upland habitat within 100 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Bats. A qualified biologist who is experienced with bat surveying techniques, behavior, roosting habitat, and identification of local bat species , no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities, shall conduct a pre-construction habitat assessment of the Project site to characterize potential bat habitat and identify potentially active roost sites. No further action is required if the pre- construction habitat assessment does not identify bat habitat or signs of potentially active bat roosts within the Project site (e.g., guano, urine staining, dead bats, etc.). If the surveying biologist identifies potential roosting habitat or potentially active bat roosts within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, including trees Pre-construction surveys for bats. Avoidance and/or vegetation management. Conducted no more than 5 calendar days prior to construction activities. Upon completion of surveys conducted prior to any construction activity. During specified bat maternity roosting season specified. DCD; CDFW if required Same as above. Confirm surveys conducted and implementation of any applicable vegetation measures. Same as above. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 15 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 that could be trimmed or removed under the Project, the following measures shall be implemented: 1) Removal of- or disturbance to trees identified as potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15, to the extent feasible. These dates avoid bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 to August 31) and period of winter torpor (approximately October 15 to February 28). a. If removal of- or disturbance to trees identified as potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts during the periods when bats are active is not feasible, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within 5 calendar days prior to disturbance to further evaluate bat activity within the potential habitat or roost site. b. If active bat roosts are not identified in potential habitat during pre-construction surveys, no further action is required prior to removal of- or disturbance to trees within the pre-construction survey area. c. If active bat roosts or evidence of roosting is identified during pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall determine, if possible, the type of roost and species. i) If special-status bat species or maternity or hibernation roosts are detected during these surveys, appropriate species- and roost-specific avoidance and protection measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist. Such measures may include postponing the removal of or disturbance to trees, or establishing exclusionary work buffers while the roost is active. A minimum 100-foot no disturbance buffer shall be established around special-status species, maternity, or hibernation roosts until the qualified biologist determines they are no longer active. The size of the no-disturbance buffer may be adjusted by the qualified biologist, in coordination with CDFW, depending on the species present, roost type, existing screening around the roost site (such as dense vegetation), as well as the type of construction activity that would occur around the roost site, and if construction would not alter the behavior of the adult or young in a way that would cause injury or death to those individuals. Active maternity roosts shall not be disturbed without Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 16 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 advance CDFW approval until the roost disbands at the completion of the maternity roosting season or otherwise becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified biologist. ii) If a common species, non-maternity or hibernation roost (e.g., bachelor daytime roost) is identified, disturbance to- or removal of trees or structures may occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist as described under 3). 2) The qualified biologist shall be present during tree disturbance or removal if active non-maternity or hibernation bat roosts or potential roosting habitat are present. Trees with active non-maternity or hibernation roosts of common species or potential habitat shall be disturbed or removed only under clear weather conditions when precipitation is not forecast for three days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F to ensure bats are active and can abandon any potential roosts as disturbance from the clearing activities occurs, and when wind speeds are less than 15 mph. Trimming or removal of trees with active (non-maternity or hibernation) or potentially active roost sites of common bat species shall follow a two-step removal process: a. On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be cut only using hand tools (e.g., chainsaws). b. On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using hand tools or other equipment (e.g. excavator or backhoe). c. All felled trees shall remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other processing to allow any bats to escape, or be inspected once felled by the qualified biologist to ensure no bats remain within the tree and/or branches. 3) Bat roosts that begin during construction are presumed to be unaffected as long as a similar type of construction activity continues, and no buffer would be necessary. Direct impacts on bat roosts or take of individual bats will be avoided. On-site Monitoring. During tree disturbance or removal, if active non- maternity or hibernation bat roosts or potential roosting habitat are present. Same as above Same as above Mitigation Measure BIO-5a: Salvage and Reintroduction of Creeping Pre-construction Upon completion of DCD; CDFW if Confirm surveys conducted Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 17 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Wildrye Grassland. The following measures shall be implemented prior to construction to avoid or minimize impacts to creeping wildrye grassland within the Project site. 1) A qualified botanist shall identify the boundaries of creeping wildrye grassland within the Project site during the flowering season (between June and July) and prior to site grading. Boundaries of this sensitive natural community shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance, if feasible. 2) Where avoidance of this community is infeasible, the perennial grasses shall be harvested at the appropriate time and under the direction of the qualified botanist from locations where grading and/or ground disturbance will occur within the Project site. 3) Harvested grasses shall be stored for reintroduction into suitable habitat within upland portions of the Project site that will be preserved as open space. 4) The Project applicant shall contract a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a Monitoring Plan for relocated / transplanted creeping wildrye grasses within the Project site. The plan shall detail methods and location for relocating or reintroducing the grasses, success criteria, monitoring methods and maintenance for successful establishment, reporting protocols, and contingency measures to be implemented if the initial mitigation fails. The plan shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate agencies prior to the start of local construction activities, with the objective of providing equal or better habitat and populations than the impacted area(s). The recommended success criteria for relocated plants shall be 1:1 ratio [number of plants established: number of plants impacted] after two years, unless otherwise specified by CDFW. 5) The plan shall be submitted to the County and CDFW prior to the start of local construction activities within the boundaries of the creeping wildrye grassland. 6) Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the monitoring plan. surveys. Prepare Monitoring Plan: prior to start of local construction activities. Submit plan Implementation/ Monitoring of plan. surveys conducted prior to site grading and any construction activity during flowering season. Prior to start of local construction activities. Upon receipt of plan, prior to start of local construction activities. Ongoing throughout construction; after two years of plant relocation. required and implementation of plan and all measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-5b: Enhancement and Creation of Valley Oak Woodland. The Project applicant shall mitigate for temporary disturbance of oak woodland in support of the Project through restoration or preservation / enhancement / creation of oak woodland at a ratio of 1:1 (restored/enhanced/preserved area: impacted area) through one of the following options: Prepare/Submit HMMP: Prior to construction activity. Upon receipt of HMMP. DCD Review and approve plan. Verify option and implementation of plan. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 18 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 1) Planting replacement trees within the Project site on areas of the hill that will be preserved as open space following development. The Project sponsor shall contract with a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for oak woodland habitat to be restored as part of the Project. The HMMP would be subject to approval by Contra Costa County. The HMMP shall include a detailed description of restoration/enhancement/preservation actions proposed such as a planting plan, a weed control plan to prevent the spread of invasive and non-native species within restored areas, and erosion control measures to be installed around the restored area following mitigation planting to avoid or minimize sediment runoff throughout the Project site; restoration performance criteria for the restored area that establish success thresholds over a period of 5 years; and proposed monitoring/maintenance program to evaluate the restoration performance criteria, under which progress of restored areas are tracked to ensure survival of the mitigation plantings. The program shall document overall health and vigor of mitigation plantings throughout the monitoring period and provide recommendations for adaptive management as needed to ensure the site is successful, according to the established performance criteria. An annual report documenting the results and providing recommendations for improvements throughout the year shall be provided to the County. In designing the Tree Replacement Plan, the arborist shall review the final project grading plans to ensure that adequate tree preservation methods, guidelines, and conditions are in place. The project arborist shall host pre-demolition meetings with the general contractor and demolition contractor to determine clearance pruning, stump removal techniques, fencing placement and, timing to establish a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The arborist shall conduct post-demolition meetings to review and confirm tree protection fencing for grading and construction. All vehicles, equipment, and storage of job site materials and debris, shall be kept outside of the TPZ. The arborist shall incorporate standard protocols set forth in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Construction Management Standard, Part 5 and the International Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction. 2) Paying an in-lieu fee to a natural resource agency or a non-profit organization that would use the fees to protect or enhance oak woodland habitat of the region. If an in-lieu fee is used for mitigation, the amount of the in-lieu fee shall be determined either by calculating the value of the land with Implementation/ Reporting: Annually, over a period of 5 years during and after construction. Pre/post- Demolition meetings. Fee Payment. Throughout implementation period. Prior to and following any demolition activities. Prior to any activities on the site. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 19 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 oak woodland habitat proposed for removal, or by some other calculation. An alternate calculation shall reflect differences in the quality of habitat proposed for removal, and may consider the cost of comparable habitat (fee title or easement) in nearby areas. The amount of the in-lieu fee and entity receiving the funds shall be subject to review and approval by Contra Costa County. Mitigation Measure BIO-6a: Protection of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters. For Project development within or adjacent to state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters, protection measures shall be applied to protect these features. These measures shall include the following: 1) An updated wetland delineation shall be submitted to USACE for verification to establish the boundaries and current jurisdictional status of the aquatic features in the site. The verified wetland delineation shall be used to quantify the Project impacts to aquatic resources for permitting purposes. 2) To the maximum extent feasible, Project construction activities within or adjacent to wetlands or waters shall be conducted during the dry season (between June 15 and October 15) and the disturbance footprint shall be minimized in these areas. 3) Stabilize disturbed, exposed slopes immediately upon completion of construction activities (e.g., following cut and fill activities and installation of bioretention pond infrastructure) to prevent any soil or other materials from entering aquatic habitat. Plastic monofilament of any kind (including those labeled as biodegradable, photodegradable, or UV-degradable) shall not be used. Only natural burlap, coir, coconut or jute wrapped fiber rolls and mats shall be used. 4) A protective barrier (fence) shall be erected around any wetlands or waters designated for complete avoidance in Project construction plans and regulatory permits to isolate it from construction or other ground-disturbing activities. 5) A fencing material meeting the requirements of both water quality protection and wildlife exclusion may be used. Fences must be properly installed with final approval by a County representative, including adequate supports or wire backing for use if windy conditions are anticipated, and with the lower edge keyed in to the soil to ensure a proper barrier. Signage shall be installed on the fencing to identify sensitive habitat areas and restrict construction activities; 6) No equipment mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of vehicles, equipment or machinery, or similar activity shall occur until a County representative has inspected and approved the wetland protection Implementation of Protection Measures. Preparation/Sub mittal of Updated Wetland Delineation. Prior to and throughout all site disturbance and construction activities. Prior to and throughout all site disturbance and construction activities. DCD and USACE Review and verify delineation and implementation of protection measures. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 20 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 fence; 7) The Project proponent shall ensure that the temporary fence is continuously maintained until all construction or other ground- disturbing activities are completed; and 8) Drip pans and/or liners shall be stationed beneath all equipment staged nearby jurisdictional features overnight to minimize spill of deleterious materials into jurisdictional waters. Equipment maintenance and refueling in support of project implementation shall be performed in designated upland staging areas and work areas, and spill kits shall be available on-site. Maintenance activity and fueling must occur at least 100 feet from jurisdictional wetlands and other waters or farther as specified in the Project permits and authorizations. Mitigation Measure BIO-6b: Permits and Compensation for Impacts to Wetlands and Waters. To offset unavoidable permanent impacts to approximately 0.02 acres of the side-hill seep and the fill of less than 0.1 acres for construction of the storm drain outfall along the bank of Pacheco Creek, the Project applicant shall secure the appropriate permits and provide compensatory mitigation as determined by the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the impacted aquatic resources during the permitting process. To establish the jurisdictional status of the various aquatic features in the site, the updated wetland delineation will be submitted to USACE for verification. The necessary permits will depend on the jurisdictional status of the features. While the outfall in Pacheco Creek is expected to require permits from USACE (Nationwide 7), CDFW (1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement), and RWQCB (401 Certification), the permitting scenario of the side-hill seep is less predictable. It is possible USACE will verify this feature as outside Clean Water Act jurisdiction due to spatial and hydrological isolation from other Waters of the U.S. If the seep is verified as non-jurisdictional, the Regional Water Quality Control Board Water would be expected to issue a Notice of Applicability to authorize its fill pursuant to Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ. At a minimum, or as determined by the USACE, compensation acreage for impacted wetlands and waters would meet a 1:1 ratio (created/restored/enhanced: impacted) to achieve no net loss of aquatic resources. Compensation may be accomplished through the purchase of credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. Alternatively, compensation may be accomplished through on-site or off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of jurisdictional resources, subject to the approval of the permitting agencies. On-site or off-site creation/restoration/enhancement plans must be prepared by a qualified biologist prior to construction, include a planting plan and planting methods, Permitting and Compensatory Mitigation. Monitoring of compensation acreage for at least five years. Prior to and throughout site disturbance and construction activities. Annually, for at least five years after implementation of compensation acreage. DCD; USACE and other jurisdictional status it verifies Review and verify issuance of permits and implementation of required compensation. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 21 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 monitoring and reporting requirements, performance criteria (e.g., species diversity and vegetative cover thresholds), and maintenance requirements, and is subject to review and modification by resource agency permits. Implementation of creation/restoration/enhancement activities by the Project applicant (or permittee) shall occur prior to Project impacts, whenever possible, to avoid temporal loss. On- or off-site creation/restoration/enhancement sites shall be monitored by the applicant for at least five years to ensure their success, or as otherwise required by resource agencies. 4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during Project implementation, including ground disturbance associated with project construction, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the County of their initial assessment. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the County determines, based on recommendations from a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative (if the resource is Native American-related), that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC Section 21080.3), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the County shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is Native American-related), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, determined by a qualified professional or California Native American tribe, as is appropriate (according to PRC Section 21084.3), 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. Upon find of prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources Prior to any ground disturbance and throughout construction DCD; Native American representative, if required Confirm suspension of work upon find; Make resource determination; Approve avoidance or other applicable measures. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 22 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 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. The resource shall be treated with the appropriate dignity, taking into account the resource’s historical or cultural value, meaning, and traditional use, as determined by a qualified professional or California Native American tribe, as is appropriate. 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 proponent and at the County’s discretion, the professional may work under contract with the County. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction activities, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the location where human remains are found or within 100 feet until: A. 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 B. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (1) The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; (2) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; (3) 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: Upon find of prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources Prior to any ground disturbance and throughout construction DCD; Native American representative, if required Confirm suspension of work upon find; Make resource determination; Approve avoidance or other applicable measures. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 23 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 A. 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; (1) The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or (2) 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. 4.5 Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Grading Plans. The Project applicant shall include in the Project’s preliminary grading plan the recommendations made in Engeo’s Geotechnical Exploration Bay View Subdivision report dated August 15, 2003, the Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plan and Supplemental Recommendations dated June 27, 2006, and supplemental Plan Review and Response to Peer Review Comments Memo dated June 19, 2019, and Response to CCCFCD Comments Regarding Geotechnical Feasibility Bayview dated May 29, 2020, except as superseded by specific geotechnical recommendations related to engineering or the physical aspects of Project construction in the Geologic Peer Reviews dated August 9, 2006, April 14, 2006 and June 30, 2020 by Darwin Myers Associates (DMA) on behalf of the County, to the extent that all recommendations apply to the proposed grading plan. These recommendations include oversight of grading operations which shall be conducted by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Submittal of preliminary grading plan. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits. DCD; County Peer Reviewing Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer Review of design –level geotechnical report and grading monitoring plan. The final grading plans shall be in accordance with the Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance (Title 7 Division 716) and reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of Project construction. If any slopes or areas of concern are observed to be unstable during grading, the California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer shall oversee the removal of the suspected material and reconstruction of the slope as a buttress fill slope with engineered slope stabilization features such as geogrid reinforcement. Submittal of final grading plan. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits. Final inspection of excavated slopes and graded slopes shall be completed by a California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer with knowledge of the Project conditions. The slope stability considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved of by the Submittal and final inspection of excavated slopes and Following rough grading and prior to issuance of the first residential permit. Review of final excavation and grading. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 24 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of Project construction. graded slopes. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Design-level Geotechnical Investigation. The Project applicant shall prepare and submit to the County a site-specific, design level geotechnical investigation for the Project. The investigation shall analyze expected ground motions at the site from known active faults in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (“Title 24”), which requires that all designs accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. The investigation shall review improvement and grading plans and update geotechnical design recommendations for proposed walls, foundations, foundation slabs and surrounding related improvements (e.g., utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks) including maintaining pipeline safety for existing pipelines. The report shall be subject to technical review and approv al by a California certified engineering geologist or registered professional geotechnical engineer. Prepare and submit to the County a site- specific, design level geotechnical investigation – seismic. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits. DCD; County Peer Reviewing Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer Review of design-level geotechnical report. All recommendations by the engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design. Recommendations that are applicable to foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation that were prepared prior to or during the Project design phase, shall be incorporated in the Project, all foundations and other project structures must comply with the performance standards set forth in the California Building Code. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved of by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of Project construction. Incorporate recommendation into final design – seismic. Ongoing: Throughout grading and construction activities. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Fill Placement. The Project applicant shall incorporate the geotechnical recommendations pertaining to proposed fill placement and site preparation including the fill transition zone areas for the grading plan for the Project, as specified in Engeo’s Geotechnical Exploration Bay View Subdivision report dated August 15, 2003, and the Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plan and Supplemental Recommendations dated June 27, 2006, and supplemental Plan Review and Response to Peer Review Comments Memo dated June 19, 2019 and Response to CCCFCD Comments Regarding Geotechnical Feasibility dated May 29, 2020, except as superseded by specific geotechnical recommendations related to engineering or the physical aspects of Project construction in the Geologic Peer Reviews dated August 9, 2006, April 14, 2006, and June 30, 2020 by Darwin Myers Associates (DMA) on behalf of the County. In addition, the Project applicant shall adhere to County grading and construction policies to reduce the potential for geologic hazards, including settlement and differential settlement. All construction activities and design criteria shall comply with applicable codes and requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (“Title 24”). The final grading plan reflecting the applicant recommendation for the site pertaining to fill placement shall be submitted to and approved by the Contra Costa Fill placement and transition zone areas in grading plan. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permits. DCD; County Peer Reviewing Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer Review of design-level geotechnical report. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 25 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of Project construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Terraced Slopes/Drainage. The Project applicant shall ensure routine inspections and maintenance of terraced slopes conducted by qualified professionals. Maintenance measures shall include maintaining vegetative cover of exposed slopes upland of the proposed development after construction, for the operational life of the Project, consistent with the provisions of the Project's SWPPP, as identified in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, in this EIR. Drainage conveyances on the cut terraces shall be maintained to ensure a minimum of 85 percent of total conveyance capacity, as specified in the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Any evidence of gulley or rill erosional effects shall be remedied immediately by the Project applicant through additional hydroseeding or other industry standard measures and best practices for erosion control. Routine inspections and maintenance of terraced slopes. Ongoing until the mitigation conditions are met. DCD; Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Review and approval of revegetation plan. Review and approve conveyance capacity, as specified in the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Paleontological Resources Treatment. If paleontological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the County shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology’s Professional Standards shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If paleontological resources are encountered during construction. Within 24 hours of discovery. DCD; Peer reviewing qualified paleontologist. Receive notification of discovery. If it is determined that the Project could damage a paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Implement mitigation for avoidance. Upon qualified paleontologist’s determination of potential damage. DCD; Peer reviewing qualified paleontologist. Review and approve detailed treatment plan, per PRC Section 21083.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the County. Treatment of unique paleontological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. Implement a detailed treatment plan. Distribute plan results. Upon qualified paleontologist’s determination of potential damage and avoidance infeasibility. DCD; Peer reviewing qualified paleontologist. Confirm implementation of detailed treatment plan, per PRC Section 21083.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. Confirm timely reporting of plan results 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 26 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure GHG-1: GHG Emissions Reduction Plan. Prior to the County’s approval of the first building permit for the Project, the Project applicant shall submit to the County a “GHG Emissions Reduction Plan” (“Plan”) for implementation over the useful life of the Project (generally estimated to be at least 30 years) in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure. The Plan shall document the GHG reduction measures that will be combined and implemented to achieve the required emissions reduction of at least 182 MT CO2e /year, and a quantification of the emissions reductions achieved with the combination of measures identified in the Plan. A. On-Site Reduction Measures. The Project applicant shall implement any combination of the following GHG emissions reduction measures to, cumulatively, achieve the required emissions reduction of at least approximately 182 MT CO2e /year to achieve the GHG efficiency target of 3.86 MTCO2e/SP, as discussed in the Approach to Analysis. 1) Meet the Project’s electricity demand with rooftop solar PV and/or through purchase of 100% zero-carbon electricity. The Project will purchase 100% zero-carbon electricity (e.g., through MCE’s “Deep Green” or “Local Sol” plans, or through PG&E’s “Solar Choice” plan). 2) Electrification. The Project applicant shall demonstrate on Project plans submitted to the County for review and approval that each of the 144 homes include electric heating and cooling or all loads, and will either use additional on-site solar or purchase 100 percent zero- carbon electricity (e.g., through MCE’s “Deep Green” or “Local Sol” plans or PG&E’s “Solar Choice” plan). Alternatively, default grid- supplied electricity would be incorporated into the Project. 3) Hearth Reduction. The Project applicant shall demonstrate on Project plans submitted to the County for review and approval that hearths will not be installed in any of the Project homes. 4) EV Chargers and Promotion. a. The Project applicant shall demonstrate on Project plans submitted to the County for review and approval the proposed installation of residential electrical vehicle (EV) chargers in at least 100 of the 144 homes. This mitigation involves measures beyond the required installation of charging capability (i.e., wiring) required by CALGreen Building Code. b. The Project applicant shall submit to the County promotional materials that specifically promote EV use through messaging (e.g., flyers, fact sheets), vehicle subsidies, and/or test-drive events specific for residents of Submittal of GHG Reduction Plan specifying GHG emissions reduction measures. During the County’s review of plans for first grading- related and/or building permit for each development phase. DCD Review and approve plan and report. Verify implementation of measures and emissions reduction. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 27 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Project homes. The Project applicant shall also submit to the County documents that quantify the number or rate of EV ownership and for all Project homes for the prior year. The target for this measure is that at least 50 percent of residents with EV chargers (corresponding to 35 percent of project households) own an EV and use the EV for 80 percent of household driving by 2035, however, this target may vary depending on the level of implementation and resulting emissions reduction achieved by other measures in this mitigation measure. 5) Additional Energy Measures. a. High-Efficiency Appliances. Throughout occupancy of the Project, and if appliances are offered by homebuilders, the Project applicant shall offer homebuyers Energy Star-rated high-efficiency appliances (or other equivalent technology) that have efficiency levels at or above measures required by CALGreen, for installation in Project homes. B. Implementation, Monitoring and Enforcement. 1) Implementation. The Project applicant shall implement the approved GHG Reduction Plan (Plan) throughout operation of the Project. On-site Measures: For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the Project (Mitigation Measures GHG-1, A.2, A.3, A.4a, and A5), the measures shall be included on the drawings and submitted to the County Planning Director or his/her designee for review and confirmation prior to issuance of the first grading-related and/or building permit for horizontal construction of each of the up to three development phases proposed. The County Planning Director or his/her designee shall confirm completion of the implementation of these measures as part of the final inspection and prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy (CO) for each development phase of the Project. For operational GHG reduction measures (Mitigation Measures GHG-1, A.1 and A.4b), the measures shall be implemented on an indefinite and ongoing basis, as described in Section C.2, Reporting and Monitoring, of this mitigation measure. 2) Reporting and Monitoring. Reporting: The Project applicant shall submit a GHG Reduction Implementation of GHG emissions reduction measures. Submittal of GHG Reduction Report: Within Prior to the County’s approval of the first construction or grading- related permit for the Project for each development phase. With the County’s final inspection and prior to issuance of the final CO for Verify implementation of measures and emissions reduction. Verify ongoing implementation of measures and emissions reduction. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 28 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Report (Report) to the County Planning Director or his/her designee within one year after the County issues the final CO for each development phase of the Project. The Report shall summarize the Project’s implementation of GHG reduction measures, over past, current, and anticipated Project phases, if applicable; describe compliance with the conditions of the Plan; show calculations of the emissions reduction achieved toward the minimum reduction required (182 MT CO2e /year); and include a brief summary of any revisions to the Plan since any previous Report was submitted. Monitoring: The County or its designee shall review the Report to verify that the Plan is being implemented in full and monitored in accordance with the terms of this mitigation measure. The Plan shall be considered fully attained when the County or its designee makes the determination, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed Project has achieved the required emissions reduction of at least approximately 182 MT CO2e /year and is unlikely to exceed the applicable significance threshold at any time in the future, after implementation of this mitigation. Enforcement: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the County retains its discretion to enforce all mechanisms under the Municipal Code and other laws to enforce non-compliance with the requirements of this mitigation measure. The County retains the right to request a Corrective Action Plan if the Report is not submitted, or if the GHG Reduction Measures in the Plan are not being fully implemented and/or maintained, and also retains the right to enforce provisions of that Corrective Action Plan if specified actions are not taken or are not successful at addressing the violation within the specified period of time. The County shall have the discretion to reasonably modify the timing of reporting, with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment by the Applicant, to coincide with other related monitoring and reporting required for the Project. one year after issuance of final CO for each development phase. Submittal of Monitoring Report. each development phase. Ongoing after completion of each development phase, to be modified at County’s discretion. 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The use of construction best management practices shall be implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. These shall include the following: 1. Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; 2. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; 3. During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly Start of construction activities. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Monitoring: Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Review and approval of construction contracts. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 29 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 contain and remove grease and oils; and 4. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The Project shall ensure the following fill and excavation parameters are met to reduce the risk of damage to pipelines: 1. Before the commencement of any grading activities, the tops of the five pipelines shall be accurately located on site, and confirmed to be a minimum of 6 feet below the existing ground surface. If it is determined that the any pipeline top is less than six feet below the surface, and will be at risk of impact during proposed grading excavation, one of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: deepening the pipeline, providing mechanical protection such as steel or concrete barriers, or elevating the proposed final road elevation. 2. Maximum fill heights over the Santa Fe Pacific Partners L.P. (“SFPP”); Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (“KMP”); and Crimson-Chevron KLM (“KLM”) and Chevron pipelines shall exert a calculated stress of more than what the pipelines can safely tolerate, as determined by a professional engineer in accord with applicable industry standards and safety regulations based on observed pipe material and other factors Preparation of final plan for grading and excavation. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Monitoring: Ongoing throughout construction. DCD; and peer reviewing professional engineer Review and verify implementation and adherence of all parameters. 3. Prior to final design and construction, a refined analysis of field determined bay mud thickness and bay mud consolidation properties shall be conducted. Though not anticipated, if bay mud is found to exert a calculated stress of more than what the pipeline can safely tolerate, as determined by a professional engineer in accord with applicable industry standards and safety regulations based on observed pipe material and other factors, then one or both of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: reduce proposed fill thickness or use lightweight fill such as cellular concrete or Geofoam encasement (or its equivalent). Refined field analysis. Prior to final design and construction. DCD; and peer reviewing professional engineer Review and approval of refined analysis. 4. The as-built burial depths of the pipelines and the final proposed subgrade elevations shall result in all pipelines having a minimum burial depth in accord with prevailing regulatory code or pipe owner requirement, whichever is more stringent. If any pipeline does not have a cover in accordance with regulatory minimums, one of the following additional safety measures shall be undertaken: deepening the pipeline, providing mechanical protection such as steel or concrete barriers, or elevating the proposed final road elevation. Confirmation of final as-built pipeline burial depths. Final grading inspection. DCD; and peer reviewing professional engineer Confirm adequate as- building burial depths. 4.10 Noise Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 30 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The applicant shall create and implement a development-specific noise reduction plan to reduce noise at sensitive receptors along Central Avenue to below 75 dBA Lmax, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-polluting methods to maintain or reduce construction-related noise to threshold levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. Examples of measures that can effectively reduce noise impacts include locating equipment in shielded and/or less noise-sensitive areas, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels, and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other feasible controls could include, but shall not be limited to, fan silencers, enclosures, and mechanical equipment screen walls. Create and implement a development- specific noise reduction plan. Preparation of construction contracts. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Monitoring: Ongoing throughout construction. DCD Review and approval of development-specific noise reduction plan. Review and approval of construction contracts. In addition, the applicant shall require contractors to limit construction activities in the northernmost 500 feet of the project site to daytime hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday The plan for attenuating construction- related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. Start of construction activity. Monitoring: Ongoing throughout construction DCD Respond to reported construction activities outside of allowed hours/days. Review and approve noise attenuation plan, as needed. 4.12 Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure PUB-1: The project sponsor shall equip all dwelling units with residential automatic fire sprinkler systems complying with the 2002 edition of the National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D, subject to the review and approval of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Submittal of residential building plans. Prior to filing of the parcel map. Prior to issuance of the first residential permit. DCD and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Review and approval of plans for automatic fire sprinkler system. Review and approval of the automatic fire sprinkler system. 4.13 Transportation Mitigation Measure TRF-1: The Project applicant and construction contractor(s) shall develop and submit a Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan for the review and approval of the County’s Public Works Department. The Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department a minimum of 60 days prior to the initiation of construction activities: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips to avoid peak traffic hours, types of vehicles and maximum speed limits for each type of vehicle, expected daily truck trips, staging areas, emergency routes and access, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, flag person requirements, signs, cones for drivers, a street sweeping plan and designated construction access routes. • Identification of roadways to be used for the movement of Development and submittal of Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. Sixty (60) days prior to commencement of construction activities. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review and approval of Construction Management and Traffic Control Plan. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 31 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 construction vehicles to minimize impacts on motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the Project area. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur. Mitigation Measure TRF-2: Prior to commencement of Project construction activities, which would include any construction-related deliveries to the site, the Project applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, the road conditions of the construction route that would be used by Project construction-related vehicles. Document pre- construction road conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review and approval of documented road conditions on construction routes. The Project applicant shall also document the construction route road conditions after Project construction has been completed. The Project applicant shall repair roads that are damaged by construction related activities to County standards and to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. As a security to ensure that damaged roads are adequately repaired, the Project applicant shall make an initial monetary deposit, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Public Works, to an account to be used for roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction. Document construction route road conditions. Prior to commencement of construction activities, with final inspection. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review and approval of post-project construction road conditions on construction route. If the County must ultimately undertake the road repairs, and repair costs exceed the initial payment, then the Project applicant shall pay the additional amount necessary to fully repair the roads to pre-construction conditions. County undertaking the road repairs. Prior to refunding the initial monetary deposit. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Confirm any reimbursement amount to County. Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall develop a TDM program for the proposed Project, including any anticipated phasing, and shall submit the TDM Program to the County Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval. The TDM Program shall identify trip reduction strategies as well as mechanisms for funding and overseeing the delivery of trip reduction programs and strategies. The TDM Program shall be designed to achieve the trip reduction, as required to reduce the VMT per resident from 20.6 to 16.5, to the extent feasible, consistent with a 20 percent reduction in the near-term. Trip reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to existing and planned pedestrian facilities, nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc. 2. Bicycle network improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to existing and planned bicycle facilities, nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc. Develop/Submit TDM program. Prior to issuance of initial building permit. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review/Approve TDM program; Verify implementation of program. Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 32 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 3. Enhancements to bus service during peak commute times 4. Compliance with a future County VMT/TDM ordinance 5. Participation in a future County VMT fee program Mitigation Measure TRF-4: In accordance with County requirements and design standards provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) to improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles (or hazards). Implement pavement, signage and other street improvements on Palms Drive and Central Avenue. Prior to and after implementation of street improvements on Palms Drive and Central Avenue. DCD and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review/approve proposed street improvements; Verify implementation of surface pavement, signage and other features. Mitigation Measure TRF-6: In accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project applicant shall provide: • Continuous sidewalks on at least one side of Palms Drive and Central Avenue to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian facilities on Arthur Road to improve pedestrian transportation conditions. • Even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to improve bicycle transportation conditions. • Sidewalks for all streets within the project site including facilities on both sides of each street and curb ramps at each street intersection. Submittal of Project site plan / VTM Prior to issuance of the first residential permit. DCD, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review and approval of improvement measures. Mitigation Measure TRF-7a: In accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project applicant shall provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to accommodate emergency vehicles. Submittal of Project site plan / VTM. Prior to issuance of the first residential permit. DCD, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Review and approval of improvement measures. 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: The Project sponsor shall implement the following mitigation measures for construction-related effects from installation and expansion of the proposed new waterline: a) Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (Best Management Practices for Controlling Particulate Emissions) b) Mitigation Measure BIO-2a (Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training) (see Impact BIO-2) c) Mitigation Measure BIO-2b (General Conservation Measures during Construction) (see Impact BIO-2) d) Mitigation Measure BIO-6a (Protection of Jurisdictional Wetlands Installation / Expansion of New Waterline. Prior to and throughout construction. DCD, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works (also see specific mitigations in applicable sections in the MMRP) Review and approval of all measures (also see specific mitigations in applicable sections in the MMRP). Bayview Estates Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File Nos. CDSD04-08809, CDGP-00007, CDRZ-03148, CDDP-03080 Department of Conservation & Development (DCD); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS); California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Bayview Estate Residential Project 33 of 33 ESA / 208078 Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report November 2021 and Other Waters) ) (see Impact BIO-6) e) Mitigation Measure CUL-1a (Prehistoric or Historic-Period Archaeological Resources) (see Impact CUL-1) f) Mitigation Measure CUL-1b (Human Remains) (see Impact CUL- 1) g) Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (Design-level Geotechnical Compliance) (see Impact GEO-3) h) Mitigation Measure GEO-3 (Fill Placement) i) Mitigation Measure GEO-4 (Terraced Slopes/Drainage) j) Mitigation Measure GEO-5 (Paleontological Resources Treatment) k) Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (Release of Hazardous Materials) (see Impact HAZ-1) l) Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 (Pipeline Damage Risk) (see Impact HAZ-2) m) Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Construction Noise) (see Impact NOI- 1) n) Mitigation Measure TRF-1 (Construction Traffic) (see Impact TRF- 1) o) Mitigation Measure TRF-2 (Public Roadway Damage or Wear) (see Impact HAZ-2) 0.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.3 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.140 1:9,028 GENERAL PLAN: (HI) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (APN 380-030-046) City Limits Unincorporated General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) 0.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.3 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.140 1:9,028 ZONING: (H-I) HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (APN 380-030-046) City Limits Unincorporated Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-6 -SD-1 (Slope Density Hillside Development) R-6 -TOV -K (Tree Obstruction and Kensington) R-6, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-6 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-40, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) 0.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.3 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.140 1:9,028 AERIAL PHOTO (APN 380-030-046) City Limits Unincorporated World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations HI PS PS SH LI LI LI LI OS LI SH SH OS LI OS ML HI HI PS HI A r t h u r R d P almsDr §¨¦680 Map Created 04/20/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI07501,500375 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Bayview EstatesGeneral PlanAmendment(GP04-0013) HI PS PS SH LI LI LI OS LI SH SH OS LI OS ML OS A r t h u r R d P almsDr §¨¦680 Current General Plan Amended General Plan SITE SITE Project Site Adjacent Site (owned by applicant) Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) PS (Public/Semi-Public) OS (Open Space) A r t h u r R d P almsDr H-I L-I R-6 R-7 H-I, -X R-40 L-I, -X R-B C A-2, -X §¨¦680 Map Created 04/20/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI07501,500375 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Bayview EstatesRezone(RZ04-3148) A r t h u r R d P almsDr H-I L-I R-6 R-7 H-I, -X R-40 L-I, -X R-B C D-1 A-2, -X §¨¦680 Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE Project Site Adjacent Site (owned by applicant) Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-B (Retail Business) L-I (Light Industrial) L-I -X (Light Industrial - Railroad) H-I (Heavy Industrial) H-I -X (Heavy Industrial - Railroad) P-1 (Planned Unit) Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, February 23, 2022 – 6:30 .P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Bayview Estates Residential Project County Files: CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Applicant/Owner: Discovery Builders Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Zoning/General Plan: Heavy Industrial District (H-I) / Heavy Industry (HI) Site Address/Location: Located at the south termini of Central Avenue and Palms Drive and east of Interstate 680, in the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor Parcel Number: 380-030-046). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH# 2008032074, was prepared and published for the project. (See Section VIII.) Project Planner: Gary Kupp, Senior Planner, (925) 655-2871, email: gary.kupp@dcd.cccounty.us Staff Recommendation: Approve (See section II. for full recommendations.) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of the Bayview Estates Residential Project that proposes 1) a General Plan Amendment (GPA), and 2) to rezone a vacant 78.2-acre industrially zoned property for single-family-residential use. The project also includes 3) a phased 144-lot Subdivision including a Vesting Tentative Map, 4) a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for 144 single-family residences, 5) a Tree Permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees, 6) a Grading Permit to grade 900,000 cubic yards of earth material, and 7) requests for exceptions to Sections 98-4.002, 92-4.012, 92-4.056, and 914-12.010 of Title 9 relating to roadway and detention basin standards. The proposal consists of the following applications: CDGP04-00013; CDRZ04-03148; CDSD04-08809; CDDP04-03080 CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 2 of 24 II. RECOMMENDATIONS Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Bayview Estates Residential Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. CERTIFY that the Environmental Impact Report for the Bayview Estates Residential Project (State Clearinghouse #2008032074) was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the County Planning Commission before project approval, and reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 3. CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bayview Estates Residential Project. 4. ADOPT the CEQA findings for the project. 5. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. 6. ADOPT the statement of overriding considerations for the project. 7. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the County Planning Commission is based. 8. APPROVE the Vesting Tentative Map for the project and the associated exceptions to minimum pavement and right-of-way width and detention basin requirements (File# CDSD04-08809). 9. APPROVE the findings in support of the project. 10. APPROVE the project conditions of approval. 11. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 3 of 24 a) CERTIFY the Bayview Estates Residential Project Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project and take other related CEQA actions. b) APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment (File# CDGP04-00013) to redesignate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) and Open Space (OS). c) APPROVE the proposed Rezoning (File# CDRZ04-03148) of the project site to Planned Unit District (P-1). d) APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the project (File# CDDP04-03080) and the associated tree permit. e) APPROVE the Bayview Estates Residential Project, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. f) DIRECT staff to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III. BACKGROUND In 2004, the applicant (Discovery Builders) submitted applications for the Bayview Estates Residential Project. Initially, the applicant proposed a 163-lot subdivision development. The County analyzed the 163-lot proposal in a 2008 Draft EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, in November 2010, the applicant submitted a “Lesser Intensity Project Alternative” to the project analyzed in the 2008 Draft EIR. The Lesser Intensity Project Alternative consisted of the current 144-lot revised layout and a revised grading plan that retained the existing top elevation of Vine Hill. This 144-lot alternative project proposal was also designed to alleviate potential water pressure issues identified in the original project by lowering the elevation of residential development on the project site. The project applicant continued to coordinate with the County to further refine the project’s stormwater plan, grading in certain development areas and wetlands on the project site, as well as utility infrastructure alignments; and accordingly in 2017, the County reinitiated the CEQA process based on the currently proposed 144-lot subdivision and issued a new Notice of Preparation. The currently proposed project analyzed in the new Draft EIR incorporates the aforementioned refinements to the original proposal. The new Draft EIR presents an independent, stand-alone analysis of the project; it is not a recirculation of the 2008 Draft EIR, nor is the CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 4 of 24 recent EIR analysis a comparative assessment of the current project and the original proposal. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. General Plan: Heavy Industry (HI) 2. Zoning: Heavy Industrial District (H-I) 3. California Environmental Quality Act: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and published for the project (State Clearinghouse# 2008032074). The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR started on May 13, 2021 and was scheduled to close on June 28, 2021, but was extended an additional 14 days until July 12, 2021. The County received 21 comment letters during the comment period on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. A Final EIR has been prepared that includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and the County’s responses to those comments. The Final EIR also includes associated text changes relating to the comment responses. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has also been prepared. (See also Section VIII. of this report.) 4. Tribal Cultural Resources: In 2017, pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.3, the County solicited tribal consultation. The County sent letters to the Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission as having an interest in the proposed project vicinity. The letter included a project description and a map of the project site. The County also sent previous cultural analyses to the Wilton Rancheria, who requested by letter (dated June 16, 2017) information regarding cultural resources studies completed for the project. At that point, no response was received requesting further consultation. 5. Previous Applications: 174-64. Application for a land use permit to establish a cement products manufacturing plant and contractors yard. The application was denied by the Board of Supervisors on September 17, 1964. CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 5 of 24 V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The project site is located along the northern I-680 corridor in Contra Costa County. It is within the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area, of the County’s unincorporated communities, as shown in the General Plan. The Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area is located in North Central Contra Costa County, east of the City of Martinez and northwest of the City of Concord. The project site is a single 78.2-acre parcel and is bounded by the Contra Costa Canal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Railway tracks to the southwest and south, residential development to the northwest, Pacheco Creek to the east, and Central Avenue to the northeast. The project site is currently undeveloped and consists of relatively flat wetland and marsh areas in the east, rising sharply to the summit of the prominent hill (Vine Hill) in the western part of the site. Elevations on the site range from 4 to 283 feet above mean sea level (msl). The property supports permanent and seasonal wetlands and an extensive band of freshwater marsh in the eastern and southern part of the site. A Valley Oak woodland grove of 34 native oak trees covers a small area mid-slope on the north-facing side of the hill. The immediate surrounding area is developed with roads, trails and residential communities, as well as industrial uses including gas pipelines, a landfill and wastewater treatment facilities, and also includes areas of open space. The vicinity of the project site is characterized by a variety of land uses. I-680 extends in a northwest-southeast direction west and south of the project site. To the West: The area directly west of the freeway supports a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, including a self-storage facility. Further west the uses are primarily residential development, including the County’s unincorporated Mountain View neighborhood and suburban areas of the City of Martinez. To the Northwest: Parcels to the northwest of the site and east of the freeway are characterized by single-family homes within the General Plan land use designation Single Family High Density (SH). Further northwest is the Waterbird Regional Preserve, which is an approximately 198-acre wetland and associated upland area managed jointly by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), the Mountain View Sanitary District (MVSD), the Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 6 of 24 To the Northeast, East and South: Lands to the northeast, east and south are mostly undeveloped properties zoned for heavy industrial purposes. Undeveloped lands and recreational vehicle storage occupy areas immediately south of the railroad tracks. The Maltby sanitary sewer pumping station, operated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), is directly adjacent to the project site to the east. The Conco construction and trucking yard is also located east of the site and Pacheco Creek. The majority of the land to the north and northeast of the project site is property of the Acme Landfill. While the landfill is currently mostly inactive, a fully operational refuse transfer station is located approximately 0.3 miles north of the project site. In addition, heavily industrialized land areas supporting Shell Martinez Refinery and the Marathon Refinery (previously Tesoro Golden Eagle and Tosco) are located approximately one mile northwest and east respectively. Underground pipelines carrying crude oil and refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel) run under Central Avenue and the project site along a wetland area on the northeastern boundary of the site. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project sponsor proposes to develop a phased 144-unit residential subdivision on approximately 78.2-acres of vacant land in the Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The proposed project includes the following major components on and adjacent to the project site: 1. A Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) for development of up to 144 detached single-family homes and associated new internal roadways on approximately 31.8 acres of the project site; 2. Approximately 42 acres of open space, marshes and undeveloped land, including: • The preservation of approximately 20.1 acres of the upper hill area shown as “Parcel A” on the VTM; • The preservation of approximately 19.8 acres of the lower site areas (containing wetlands, coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, open water, and alkali meadow) shown as “Parcel B” on the VTM; • The development of a new 2.0-acre stormwater treatment basin, in accordance with the County’s C.3 Guidebook, and shown as “Parcel F” on the VTM; CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 7 of 24 3. Development of an approximately 4.5-acre private neighborhood park in proximity to “Parcel B” and “Parcel F”; 4. A grading permit for onsite grading of approximately 900,000 cubic yards of earth material for residential subdivision development, including substantial grading of the lower hill area and limited grading of the upper hill area in order to balance overall project cut and fill earthwork volumes; 5. Extension of new utility lines to and throughout the project site, and the repair and upgrade of existing off-site utility lines; 6. Improvement of two existing off-site roadways, Central Avenue and Palms Drive, to better accommodate two lanes of moving vehicular traffic to/from the project site; 7. A tree permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees; and 8. The project also includes requests for exceptions to Title 9 relating to roadway and detention basin standards. To support the proposed land use and density, the project proposes to amend the existing Contra Costa County General Plan land use map to change the existing Heavy Industrial (HI) land use designation to the Single Family Residential High Density (SH)(5.0-7.2 units/acre) and Open Space (OS) land use designations. Also, the project proposes to rezone the existing Heavy Industrial (H-I) zoning designation on the project site to the Planned Unit District (P-1) designation. The applicant is also requesting exceptions to Division 98 (Streets) and Division 914 (Drainage) of Title 9 of the County Ordnance Code. The project includes the following applications: 1) CDGP04-00013. Proposal for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Heavy Industry (HI) to Single Family Residential-High Density (SH)(5.0-7.2 units/acre) and Open Space (OS) land use designations. 2) CDRZ04-03148. Proposal to rezone a vacant 78.2-acre property currently zoned Heavy Industrial District (H-I) to Planed Unit District (P-1) for predominantly single-family-residential use. The rezoning would allow CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 8 of 24 development of single-family homes on the site, which currently allows only heavy industrial uses under the existing zoning designation. 3) CDSD04-08809. A phased Major Subdivision application, including a Vesting Tentative Map, to subdivide the property into 144 lots and four (4) open space parcels including a private park, one hillside open space parcel, one storm drainage parcel, and a roadway parcel. The subdivisions streets will be private but would be constructed to public road standards. This application also includes requests for exceptions to Sections 98-4.002, 92- 4.012, and 914-12.010 of Title 9 relating to roadway and detention basin standards. 4) CDDP04-03080. A proposal for a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the development of 144 single-family residences to be accessed by way of southern portions of Palms Drive and Central Avenue. The project proposes open space parcels, one of which is proposed as a private neighborhood park. This application also includes requests for a Tree Permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees, and a Grading Permit for proposed onsite grading of approximately 900,000 cubic yards of earth material for residential subdivision development, including grading of the lower hill area and limited grading of the upper hill area in order to balance overall project cut and fill earthwork volumes. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS The project applications were filed in 2004. Comments were initially received at that time from the Public Works Department, the Fire District, the Transportation Planning Section, the Flood Control District, the California Historical Resources Information System, the Mt. View Sanitary District, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the Contra Costa Water District, and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Due to the age of the initial agency comments on the original project applications, they are considered outdated. Therefore, only key comments relating to aspects of the project that have been ongoing priorities for particular agencies throughout the process are cited here. 1. Public Works Department (PWD): The PWD has provided several project comment letters since 2004 relating to project access, required public road standards, traffic and circulation, drainage, and stormwater control and CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 9 of 24 water quality. The final PWD staff report and conditions of approval for the project was submitted on November 17, 2021. 2. Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD): The MVSD has provided several project comments since 2004. The comments have generally related to information requests to confirm the capacity of the project’s proposed sewer system, plan submittal for engineering and design review by MVSD of the proposed sanitary system, hydraulic analysis relating to sewer pumps sanitary pump stations that will service the project, and upgrade requirements to existing abandoned upstream sewer pipes and manholes that will be put back into service in order to implement the project. MVSD issued a “Will Serve” letter confirming its plan to provide wastewater utility service to the project site. MVSD is in the process of preparing an updated capacity study that will include the Bayview project site; the study is expected to be available sometime in 2022. Final project improvement plans will have to be prepared in accordance with current MVSD standards and will be evaluated against the updated capacity study and models. 3. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD): The CCWD has also provided several project comments since 2004. These comments have pertained to potential project impacts on CCWD property and Contra Costa Canal right-of-way, CCWD regulations and requirements relating to project water service, proposed locations of water lines, and the design elevations of development potentially affecting water pressure. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The County prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project (State Clearinghouse# 2008032074). The project EIR is composed of both a Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR was posted on June 7, 2017 and a public Scoping Meeting was held on July 17, 2017. Both written and oral comments were received during the NOP public comment period and the Scoping Meeting; the comments were responded to in the Draft EIR, which was released for public review on May 13, 2021 with a Notice of Availability. A 45-day comment period for the Draft EIR began on May 13, 2021 through June 28, 2021 and was extended at the request of the public for an additional 2 weeks until July 12, 2021. During the comment period, the County received 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The comment topics included concerns about traffic CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 10 of 24 congestion, views, tree removal, impacts to wildlife, adequacy of emergency services, sanitary and water service, and petroleum pipelines. The County’s Reponses to the comments received are provided in the Final EIR that has been prepared for certification by the County Planning Commission. The EIR for the proposed project identified two significant and unavoidable effects related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the project, including: 1) Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. 2) Total Home Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, resulting in a significant impact for the project. When a public agency determines that a project will have significant and unavoidable effects, Public Resources Code section 21081(b) requires that the public agency make findings of overriding considerations to demonstrate that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects of the project. Accordingly, the County has made the requisite findings of overriding consideration and has found that the potential benefits of the project do in fact outweigh the environmental impacts. The project’s benefits include, Jobs-housing balance, provision of parks and open spaces, new housing inventory, street improvements for Palms Drive and Central Avenue, and upgraded water and sanitary services, and public nuisance abatement of illegal uses of the project site. The County’s findings of overriding consideration are attached to this staff report in the project’s findings and proposed conditions of approval (Exhibit #1). In addition, other potentially significant impacts were also identified, all of which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. These impacts affect the environmental topics of: • aesthetics, • air quality, • biological resources, • cultural & tribal cultural resources, • geology & soils, CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 11 of 24 • GHG emissions, • hazards & hazardous materials, • hydrology/water quality, • noise, • public services, • transportation, • and utilities/service systems. Environmental analysis contained in the EIR determined that measures were available to mitigate these potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. As discussed previously, a Final EIR has been prepared that includes the written comments received on the Draft EIR and the County’s responses to the comments received. The Final EIR also includes County-initiated updates and errata to the Draft EIR. These errata constitute minor text changes to the Draft EIR and occurred in Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Section 4.6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, Section 4.12: Public Services and Recreation, Section 4.13: Transportation and Circulation, and Section 4.14: Utilities and Service Systems (see chapter 4 in the Final EIR). The changes were made primarily to correct grammatical and typographical errors, as well as to improve accuracy and readability of certain passages. The text changes are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, and do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and do not alter any findings in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), recirculation of a Draft EIR is required only if: “1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; 3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or 4) the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” None of the text edits or changes to the Draft EIR meet any of the above conditions; CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 12 of 24 therefore, recirculation of any part of the Draft EIR is not required. The information presented in the project EIR supports this determination by the County. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant impacts and mitigation measures in the project EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is intended to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached to this staff report (Exhibit #6). All mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. General Plan Consistency: The proposed Bayview Estates Residential Project is consistent with the General Plan. The project sponsor proposes to develop a 144-lot residential subdivision on approximately 78.3-acres of vacant land. To support the proposed land use and density, the project proposes to amend the existing Contra Costa County General Plan land use map to change the existing Heavy Industry (HI) land use designation to the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)(5.0-7.2 units/net acre) and Open Space (OS) land use designations. The proposed change of the land use designation of the project site from HI to SH is compatible with the contiguous existing residential neighborhood to the north along Palms Drive and Central Avenue, which the General Plan also designates as SH. The SH designation allows between 5.0 and 7.2 units per net acre. 144 detached single-family homes and associated new internal roadways and a neighborhood park will be developed on approximately 36.3 acres, and the remaining acreage will comprise open space, wetlands, and undeveloped land. Subdivision CDSD04-08809, as proposed, includes 144 units on 27.2 net developable acres of the project site. The density range of the SH land use designation in the General Plan is 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, which allows the project site a minimum of 136 units and a maximum of 196 units, which translates to 5.3 units per net acre, and is therefore within the allowable SH density range. Thus, the proposed project with 144 single-family units is consistent with the SH General Plan designation. A. General Plan Policies: The application is subject to the General Plan’s CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 13 of 24 “Policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Area” (policies 3-105 through 3-107). These policies are highlighted below: • 3-105. The scenic assets and unstable slopes of the Vine Hill Ridge are to be protected for open space/agricultural use. • 3-106. The residential neighborhood east of I-680 shall be buffered from the industrial/landfill-related uses. • 3-107. Approximately 40 acres of land south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, between Morello and Pacheco, is designated Agricultural Lands, to encourage the continued operation of the Viano family vineyards and winery. B. Housing Element: The project is also consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element goals and policies. Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods in Contra Costa County. Goal 6. Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the County’s share of regional housing needs. Goal 9. Promote energy efficient retrofits of existing dwellings and exceeding building code requirements in new construction. The project site is listed in the housing site inventory that is maintained by the Housing and Community Improvement Division, as a site suitable for residential development. The project would allow for additional housing opportunities on a vacant underutilized property that may be developed to meet the housing demands and needs of the County and region. The development of 144 market-rate units on the property is expected to contribute towards meeting the County’s future 6th Cycle Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the planning period from 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA of 7,610 housing units as determined by ABAG/MTC as the unincorporated County’s fair share of development towards the regional housing need. The subject CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 14 of 24 property is listed in the current 5th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory as available land for the potential development of housing. The total number of market rate units that the County is responsible for development is 3,133, and this project would provide a significant contribution towards meeting that goal. C. Noise Element: The General Plan Noise Element includes the following goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project: Goal 11-A. To improve the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful effects of noise for existing and future residents and for all land uses. Goal 11-C. To ensure that new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. Policy 11-1. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise levels shown in the future noise contour maps, should be used by the County as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of “noise sensitive” projects in potentially noisy areas. Policy 11-8. Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning hours. The Community Noise Exposure Levels on Figure 11-6 of the General Plan Noise Element show that levels of 60 dB or less are normally acceptable and 70 dB or less are conditionally acceptable for single-family residential land uses. Due to the proximity of Interstate 680 immediately to the east of the project site and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor on the southern boundary, future noise levels on the project site would exceed the 60 dB normally acceptable level for single-family residents and could result in noise impacts on project residents. Modern construction materials and design techniques generally mitigate such “environment-on-project” impacts to non-significant levels; therefore, the new residences should not CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 15 of 24 experience excessive noise issues. With respect to project construction, the project EIR included mitigation measures for avoiding excessive groundborne vibration and construction noise, by requiring the applicant to create and implement a development- specific noise-reduction plan to reduce noise at sensitive receptors along Central Avenue to below 75 dBA Lmax. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-polluting methods to maintain or reduce construction-related noise to threshold levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. Examples of measures that can effectively reduce noise impacts include locating equipment in shielded and/or less noise-sensitive areas, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels, and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other feasible controls could include, but shall not be limited to, fan silencers, enclosures, and mechanical equipment screen walls. In addition, the project has been conditioned to limit construction activities to daytime hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The aforementioned development-specific noise-reduction plan for attenuating construction-related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. These mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval #s 78, 96, 97, and 98. As conditioned, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Noise Element. D. Transportation and Circulation Element: The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan shows designated arterials and expressways that are part of the County roadway network. Arthur Road is a southwest- northeast oriented collector and extends from Pacheco Boulevard to a residential area north of the project site. West of the project site, the roadway has one travel lane in each direction. The I-680/Arthur Road interchanges provides access to/from points north along I-680. Central Avenue is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. This roadway is maintained by the County between Arthur Road and Darcie Way and becomes an unpaved private road as it extends to CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 16 of 24 the project site and CCCSD Maltby pump station. This road would be widened and paved as part of the project, serving as the main access roadway to the project site. The posted speed limit between Arthur Road and Darcie Way is 25 miles-per hour and has a suggested speed limit of 5 miles-per-hour on the privately owned segment. Central Avenue currently is not a through street and would serve as a main access roadway to the project site. Palms Drive is a local road with one travel lane in each direction north of the project site. The surface pavement conditions are poor with uneven and missing pavement. The road is not a through street and would be extended to the project site as a secondary access. The speed limit is not posted. Analysis in the project EIR indicates that the project’s projected trip generation of 1,360 additional daily trips with 107 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 143 PM peak hour trips would increase traffic volumes on residential roadway segments near the project site resulting in obstacles (or hazards) for project vehicle traffic. Therefore, in accordance with County requirements and design standards, the project has been conditioned to mitigate these impacts by providing even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive (and Central Avenue if it becomes a public street) to improve vehicle transportation conditions and eliminate obstacles (or hazards). The project EIR did not find that the project’s traffic volumes would have any substantial congestive effect on the area arterials. The project EIR did identify that the project would have significant impacts on VMT (“Vehicle Miles Traveled”) for the project. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(a) states that VMT “refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” These impacts were analyzed in the EIR based on the project’s effect on VMT and its effects on the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel, and it was found that the total Home-Based VMT per resident generated by the project would be greater than 15 percent below the regional VMT for similar uses in Contra Costa County, and that the cumulative Countywide VMT would also increase as a result of the project. These VMT impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the EIR. Notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable level of the project’s impacts on VMT, the project has nonetheless been conditioned to mitigate these impacts the maximum extent feasible by CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 17 of 24 requiring prior to issuance of building permits for the project applicant to develop a transportation and parking demand management plan (TDM). The applicant shall submit the TDM program to the County Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval. The TDM program shall identify trip reduction strategies as well as mechanisms for funding and overseeing the delivery of trip reduction programs and strategies. The TDM program shall be designed to achieve the trip reduction, as required to reduce the VMT per resident from 20.6 to 16.5, to the extent feasible, consistent with a 20 percent reduction in the near-term. Thus, the project would be consistent with General Plan transportation policies. E. Open Space Element: The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains goals and policies pertinent to the preservation and management of open spaces within the County. Approximately 44.5 acres of the 78.3-acre project site will be designated open space, natural wetlands, and park areas. Therefore, the project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Open Space Element. Goal 9-A. To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic, cultural/historic, and recreational resource lands of the county. Goal 9-B. To conserve the open space and natural resources of the county through control of the direction, extent, and timing of urban growth. Goal 9-C. To achieve a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental, and economic needs of the county now and for the future. Policy 9-1. Permanent open space shall be provided within the county for a variety of open space uses. Policy 9-2. Historic and scenic features, watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced. Policy 9-13. Providing public facilities for outdoor recreation should remain an important land use objective in the county, as a method of promoting high scenic quality, for air quality maintenance, and to enhance outdoor CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 18 of 24 recreation opportunities of all residents. Policy 9-21. Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with natural contours to avoid excessive grading. 2. Zoning Consistency: The project site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial District (H-I), which allows heavy industrial manufacturing uses of all kinds, including, but not limited to, lumber, steel, chemicals, explosives, fertilizers, gas, rubber, paper, cement, sugar, and all other industrial or manufacturing products including the processing of petroleum and the manufacturing of petroleum products (i.e. crude oil refinery). No such industrial uses, or other uses of any kind, exist on the subject property which is entirely vacant land. The proposed 144-lot Bay View Estates Residential Project is incompatible with the current heavy industrial zoning designation. In order to implement the subdivision, the project includes an application to rezone the subject property (File# CDRZ04- 03148) from Heavy Industrial District (H-I) to the Bay View Estates Planned Unit District (P-1). 3. Development Standards: The P-1 zoning designation will allow single-family homes while setting aside land for hillside open space, storm drainage management, a neighborhood park, and protected wetlands. Compared to the largely unrestricted development standards of the Heavy Industrial District, the proposed P-1 district would have reduced lot area, lot width, lot depth, and building height requirements. The proposed development standards are presented below in Table 1: 4. Development Plan: The proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan (File# CDDP04-03080) for Bayview Estates includes 144 single-family residences Table 1. Bayview Estates Development Standards Min. Lot Size 6,000 sf Max. Building Height 2.5 stories or 32 ft Front Setback (House) 15 ft Front Setback (Garage) 20 ft (front access) Front Setback (Garage) 15 ft (side access)(Plan 5) Front Setback (Porch) 10 ft Side Setback 5 ft (10 ft Street side on corner lots) Rear Setback 15 ft CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 19 of 24 that will be constructed in five basic architectural plans with four 2-story designs and one 1-story design (Exhibit #4). Each of the five plans has three themes (i.e. Tuscan, French Country, and Traditional), which allows for 15 different home-design variations in the subdivision. • Plan 1 proposes approximately 2,137-square-foot, 4-bedroom, 2½ bath, 1-story homes with integrated 2-car garages. • Plan 2 proposes approximately 2,378-square-foot, 5-bedroom plus loft, 2½ bath, 2-story homes with integrated 2-car garages. • Plan 3 proposes approximately 2,678-square-foot, 5-bedroom (or 4- bedroom plus loft), 2½ bath, 2-story homes with integrated 2-car garages. • Plan 4 proposes approximately 2,745-square-foot, 4-bedroom plus loft, 2½ bath, 2-story homes with integrated 2-car garages. • Plan 5 proposes approximately 3,101-square-foot, 5-bedroom (or 4- bedroom plus loft), 3½ bath, 2-story homes with integrated 2-car garages. A Planned Unit District (P-1) must be a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the P-1 district is intended to provide flexibility of site design, building massing, setbacks, and height. The proposed Bayview Estates Residential Project will set aside permanently protected open space and wetlands that will provide potential wildlife habitat, filter and retain stormwater runoff, and maintain and enhance the overall character of the Vine Hill neighborhood. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Inclusionary Housing: The inclusionary unit requirement found in Section 822-4.402 of the Affordable Housing Ordinance requires at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units are required to be inclusionary units (i.e. units that are required to be sold at an affordable sales price to lower and moderate income households). The effective date of the inclusionary unit requirement was November 23, 2006, and the project applications were deemed complete on October 17, 2006; therefore, the project is not subject to the inclusionary unit CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 20 of 24 requirement of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. 6. Off-Street Parking: As described above in Section IX.4, each single-family residence would have an integrated 2-car garage. Thus, resident parking would be 2 parking spaces per lot, as shown on the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan. The 2-parking space requirement is consistent with the County’s off-street parking requirements for new single-family residences. 7. Traffic and Circulation: The project site is accessed from Palms Drive, an existing private paved road that links to Arthur Road, a public street 1400 feet to the west; and Central Avenue, which is a mostly paved public street, but terminates to a private gravel road some 475 feet west of the Project site. Both Palms Drive and Central Avenue west of the Project site currently provide two- way passage but are generally too narrow to meet current County Public Works standards. Off-site road improvements to Palms Drive and Central Avenue are part of the overall project scope. Mitigation measures were identified in the project EIR to mitigate the project’s traffic and circulation impacts. These measures include: • Provide continuous sidewalks on at least one side of Palms Drive to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian facilities on Arthur Road and to improve pedestrian transportation conditions. • Provide continuous sidewalks on at least one side of Central Avenue to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian facilities that terminate approximately 100 feet east of Darcie Way to improve pedestrian transportation conditions. • Provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to improve bicycle transportation conditions. • Provide even surface pavement, appropriate signage, delineation, and other features on Palms Drive and Central Avenue to accommodate emergency vehicles. • Provide sidewalks for all streets within the project site including facilities on both sides of each street and curb ramps at each street intersection. The applicant intends to improve these off-site roadways to meet the minimum standards necessary to have them accepted by the County as public streets. However, in addition to improvement of the streets, the underlying property CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 21 of 24 would have to be dedicated to the County by the fee title owner, which is an action outside of the control of the applicant. Public Works has no objection to the roads remaining private, but emphasizes that they should be improved to public street standards to satisfy the project EIR mitigation requirements and allow for the possibility of future acceptance by the County in the event that the right of way is dedicated. It should be noted that the internal subdivision streets shall remain private and cannot be accepted by the County as public streets until improvement and dedication of the private road portions of Palms Drive or Central Avenue are accepted by the County. Exceptions to the County Ordinance Code’s street design requirements were requested by the applicant. The exception requests were from Section 98-4.002 (Minimum Requirements) and by reference, 92-4.012 (Collector Street) and 92- 4.056 (Minor Street). Public Works has reviewed these requests relative to the specific streets cited in the applicant’s request and have found them to be comparable with the most recently approved project in the area, the Vinehill Meadows subdivision adjacent to I-680. The Public Works Department has no objection to these street configurations, with one minor exception. The applicant requested a 44-foot wide right of way for portions of C Drive whereas prior tentative maps (e.g. VTM dated March 26, 2020) indicated 46 feet. The 44- foot right of way only provides 1-foot from the back of sidewalk to the top or toe of the embankment slope, whereas the rest of the streets have 2 feet. The additional foot will provide additional buffer to prevent undermining of the sidewalk or sloughing of embankment material onto the sidewalk, depending on the applicable cut or fill situation at the roadway section. The findings for these exceptions are attached to this staff report in the project’s findings and proposed conditions of approval. 8. Drainage: Pursuant to the County Ordinance Code, the applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to a natural watercourse. Furthermore, the applicant shall verify the adequacy of any downstream drainage facility accepting stormwater from this project prior to discharging runoff. The drainage plan for the project essentially collects the runoff from the developed portions of the site into a combined detention and treatment basin then discharges the runoff to the creek. The detention elements of the basin CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 22 of 24 will reduce project runoff rates below the current undeveloped rates. The applicant has requested an exception to Section 914-12.010 (Detention Basins – Maintenance). This section requires detention basins to be maintained by a public entity such as a Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) or Community Services District. Similar exceptions have been granted in the recent past for these smaller detention basins. Public Works has no objection to the granting of this exception request and the findings for these exceptions are attached to this staff report in the project’s findings and proposed conditions of approval. 9. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control: In compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014), the applicant submitted a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) prepared by Balance Hydrologics, dated May 29, 2020, which has been deemed to be “preliminarily complete”. Note that the SWCP remains subject to future revision based on any changes made during the preparation of improvement plans to better address compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. There are also certain aspects of the stormwater treatment basin, such as geotechnical stability, outlet works, maintenance access, controlled emergency overflow, etc. that will need to be resolved as the project proceeds through final design prior to construction. Specifically: • The Flood Control District does not recommend construction of bioretention basins next to creeks or other water facilities subject to inundation as depicted on the revised Tentative Map. Due to the potential impacts of over saturation of the creek embankment (basin levee) and possible failure where groundwater gradients exit the creek- bank slope, this basin location is not recommended. Therefore, prior to allowing this configuration, a geotechnical report signed and stamped by a registered geotechnical engineer should be provided to the County for review. The geotechnical report should demonstrate that the through seepage, under seepage, oversaturated soil conditions, and steep levee side slope will not impact the basin embankment stability. • The stability of the steep 2:1 slope embankment on the eastern side of the development, along Drive “C” (and bioretention basin), and adjacent to wetlands in an area prone to flooding, remains a concern to the Flood CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 23 of 24 Control District. Due to the impacts a failure of the proposed embankment would have on the Pacheco Creek flood control channel and adjacent wetlands, it is recommended that a geotechnical report substantiating the steep embankment’s stability, signed and stamped by a registered geotechnical engineer, be submitted to the County for review. 10. Tree Permit: As described in Section VI. (Project Description) of this report, a tree permit to remove up to 30 code-protected trees will be required to accommodate the development. A valley oak woodland occurs on the north- facing slope of the hill within the project site. Disturbance to this valley oak woodland may be necessary during grading and may require removal of approximately 30 trees. The oak woodland is considered a sensitive natural community by California Department of Fish & Wildlife for its local rarity. Additionally, valley oak, coast live oak, and California bay trees on the hill are protected under the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. Permanent impact to this valley oak woodland community as a result of the project through removal of protected trees is potentially significant. Accordingly, the project EIR identified measures to mitigate the project’s impact on trees to a less-than-significant level that include the following: • Planting replacement trees within the project site on areas of the hill that will be preserved as open space following development. The project sponsor shall contract with a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for oak woodland habitat to be restored as part of the project. The HMMP would be subject to approval by Contra Costa County. • Paying an in-lieu fee to a natural resource agency or a non-profit organization that would use the fees to protect or enhance oak woodland habitat of the region. The amount of an in-lieu fee will be determined either by calculating the value of the land with oak woodland habitat proposed for removal, or by some other calculation. An alternate calculation shall reflect differences in the quality of habitat proposed for removal and may consider the cost of comparable habitat (fee title or easement) in nearby areas. The amount of the in-lieu fee and the entity receiving the funds shall be subject to review and approval by the County. CPC – February 23, 2022 CDGP04-00013/CDRZ04-03148/CDSD04-08809/CDDP04-03080 Page 24 of 24 The full mitigation measures cited in the project EIR for tree removal and restitution are included as conditions of approval for the project. Staff recommends approval of the tree permit and the findings for approval of a tree permit are attached to this staff report in the project’s findings and proposed conditions of approval. X. CONCLUSION The proposed Bayview Estates Residential Project would be consistent with the proposed Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) General Plan land use designation (File# CDGP04-00013), and as conditioned, would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The Subdivision (File# CDSD04-08809) would provide 144 single-family-residential home sites on the subject property and set aside permanently protected open space and wetlands that would provide potential wildlife habitat, filter and retain stormwater runoff. The proposed Rezoning (File# CDRZ04-03148) would establish a P-1 Planned Unit District that would facilitate development of the 144 single-family residences. The proposed residences would be constructed pursuant to the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan (File# CDDP04-03080), which reflects the proposed development standards for the Bayview Estates Planned Unit District. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff therefore recommends that the County Planning Commission approve Subdivision CDSD04-08809 and the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan CDDP04-03080. Staff also requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval by the Board of Supervisors of the proposed General Plan Amendment CDGP04-00013 and Rezoning CDRZ04-03148. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Project Findings & Conditions of Approval Exhibit 2 – Site Maps Exhibit 3 – Vesting Tentative Map Exhibit 4 – Development Plan Exhibit 5 – Other Agencies’ Project Review Comments Exhibit 6 – Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 1 COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT between CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and DISCOVERY BUILDERS INC. (County File Nos. CDGP04-00013, CDRZ04-03148, CDSD04-08809, CDDP04-03080) This Community Benefits Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of _____________, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between Contra Costa County (“County”), a political subdivision of the State of California, and Discovery Builders Inc. (“Developer”), a California corporation. RECITALS A. On_________, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors certified the environmental impact report and approved Developer’s Bayview Estates Residential Project (the “Project”), a 144-unit single-family residential development located in the unincorporated Vine Hill/Pacheco area, including a General Plan amendment (CDGP04-00013), a rezoning (CDRZ04-03148), a vesting tentative map (CDSD04-08809), and a preliminary and final development plan (CDDP04-03080). B. In addition to the discretionary land use approvals already obtained from the County, Developer intends to obtain County building permits necessary to construct the Project. C. The County seeks to repair its sidewalks and related pedestrian improvements from the intersection of Arthur Road, Palms Drive, and Leabig Lane to and including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School, which will facilitate implementation of polices set forth in the County's Safe Route to School Program. D. The Project approval contains Condition of Approval No. ___ that requires Developer to design and construct sidewalk and path improvements and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks along Arthur Road and Karen Lane from the intersection of Arthur Road, Leabig Lane, and Palms Drive to and including the pathway from Karen Lane to Las Juntas Elementary School (collectively, the “Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements”). Construction of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements is required to be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project’s 49th residential unit. However, the Director of Conservation and Development (the “Director”) may authorize the issuance of additional building permits before the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements are completed. E. Due to its location and surrounding uses, the Project is a unique residential development with unique impacts on the community. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, Contra Costa County and Developer agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize Developer’s commitment to making 2 a community benefits contribution to the County on a per-residential unit basis as building permits are issued for residential units of the Project. The foregoing recitals are correct and incorporated by reference into the Agreement terms. 2. Community Benefits Payments. a. Developer shall pay $2,000,000 to the County, less the actual design, construction, and other costs incurred by Developer to complete the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements (in total, the “CB Amount”). b. Developer shall pay the CB Amount, including all CPI increases to the CB Amount, on a per-residential unit basis as follows: i. For each building permit issued by the County for the Project, up to and including the building permit for the Project’s 48th residential unit, Developer shall make a payment of $10,417, plus the applicable CPI increase (each an “Initial CB Payment”). The parties acknowledge that this calculation of the Initial CB Payment assumes that the actual costs incurred by Developer to complete the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements will be $500,000, and that the true actual costs (whether greater or less than $500,000) will be accounted for in the calculation of the Recalculated CB Payment below. ii. If the Director authorizes the issuance of additional building permits after the building permit for the Project’s 48th residential unit is issued but before the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements are completed (each, an “Additional Building Permit”), Developer shall pay an Initial CB Payment to the County for each Additional Building Permit issued by the County. iii. Beginning with the building permit issued for the Project’s 49th residential unit, or the first building permit issued after the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements are completed, whichever occurs later, and for each subsequent building permit, Developer shall make a payment equal to the following (each a “Recalculated CB Payment”): ��Principal amount of the CBA Amount remaining unpaid�−�Actual cost incurred by Developer to completethe Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements ���96 − �Number of Additional Building Permitsissued by the County,if any �� c. Beginning on January 1, 2024, and on each January 1 thereafter, the principal amount of the CB Amount remaining unpaid, if any, shall increase by any increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending on the October 31 immediately preceding the January 1 when the increase takes effect. d. Developer may pre-pay all or any portion of the CB Amount, plus the applicable CPI increase, without penalty. 3 3. Verification of Developer’s Actual Costs. When the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements are completed, Developer shall provide the County with documentation of the actual costs incurred by Developer, including but not limited to, an accounting of contracts executed, purchases made, and developer’s staff time spent to design, construct, and otherwise complete of the Enhanced Pedestrian Improvements. At the County’s request, Developer shall provide additional documentation or information necessary for the County to calculate the Recalculated CB Payment amount. 4. Use of Payments. The County shall, in its sole discretion, allocate funds received pursuant to this Agreement to benefit the local community. 5. Notices. All payments, notices, demands, and other communications made under this Agreement shall be in writing and personally delivered, sent by overnight carrier with delivery charges prepaid for next business day delivery, or sent by First Class U.S. Mail with postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: To County: Director of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 To Developer: _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ A payment, notice, demand, or other communication shall be deemed given on the same day it is personally delivered, on the next business day following deposit with and overnight carrier, or on the fifth day after deposit in the U.S. Mail. A party may change its address for delivery of notices under this Agreement by providing written notice of the change in accordance with this section. 6. Assignment. Developer’s obligations under this Agreement shall be binding upon Developer’s successors and assigns. Developer shall not assign this Agreement, or any of its obligations under this Agreement, to any other person or entity without the advance written approval of the County, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Developer sells, conveys, or otherwise transfers ownership of the Project to a third-party, Developer shall require that third-party to accept an assignment of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, County consent to assignment or other transfer under this Section shall not be required for an assignment or transfer resulting from corporate reorganization, restructuring, merger, or name change involving Developer and affiliated entities, so long as there is no substantial change in the management or control of Developer, and Developer provides County with prior notice of the assignment. 7. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement confers and rights or obligations on any person or entity that is not a party to this Agreement. 8. Counterparts. The Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 4 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 10. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, no obligations contained in this Agreement shall arise unless and until the Project is approved and all applicable statutes of limitation have passed without legal challenge or, if a legal challenge arises, the subject lawsuit is resolved in a manner favorable to the County and Developer and that allows for construction of the Project. The County and Developer have executed this agreement as specified below. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DISCOVERY BUILDERS INC. _______________________________ _______________________________ Name: _________________________ Name: _________________________ Title: __________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: ____________________ Date Signed: ____________________ 0.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.3 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.140 1:9,028 BAYVIEW SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH City Limits Unincorporated Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations 0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.070 1:4,514 GENERAL PLAN - HEAVY INDUSTRY (HI) City Limits Unincorporated General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) 0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.070 1:4,514 ZONING - HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (H-I) City Limits Unincorporated Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-6 -SD-1 (Slope Density Hillside Development) R-6 -TOV -K (Tree Obstruction and Kensington) R-6, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-6 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Flood Hazard and Animal Exclusion) R-40, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Urban Farm Animal Exclusion) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Flood Hazard Combining District) HI PS PS SH LI LI LI LI OS LI SH SH OS LI OS ML HI HI PS HI A r t h u r R d P almsDr §¨¦680 Map Created 04/20/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI07501,500375 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Bayview EstatesGeneral PlanAmendment(GP04-0013) HI PS PS SH LI LI LI OS LI SH SH OS LI OS ML OS A r t h u r R d P almsDr §¨¦680 Current General Plan Amended General Plan SITE SITE Project Site Adjacent Site (owned by applicant) Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) PS (Public/Semi-Public) OS (Open Space) A r t h u r R d P almsDr H-I L-I R-6 R-7 H-I, -X R-40 L-I, -X R-B C A-2, -X §¨¦680 Map Created 04/20/2022by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI07501,500375 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Bayview EstatesRezone(RZ04-3148) A r t h u r R d P almsDr H-I L-I R-6 R-7 H-I, -X R-40 L-I, -X R-B C D-1 A-2, -X §¨¦680 Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE Project Site Adjacent Site (owned by applicant) Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-B (Retail Business) L-I (Light Industrial) L-I -X (Light Industrial - Railroad) H-I (Heavy Industrial) H-I -X (Heavy Industrial - Railroad) P-1 (Planned Unit) LEGENDNOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPLEGENDLCR/WR/W50' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALEFINISH SWALE CUT AFTERDWELLING CONSTRUCTION.MAINTAIN 1% MIN.BUILDING AREAREAR YARDTYPICAL LOTSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALE5' BENCH ACESSVIA LOT 143NOT TO SCALESECTION I-INOT TO SCALER/WSECTION E-ENOT TO SCALE'C'DRIVETYPICAL LOTSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALEGENERAL NOTESLAND USE NOTES"BAYVIEW"BAYVIEW - C.C. COUNTY - TENTATIVE MAP - SUB 8809 - 09-25-202015' SPILLWAYNOT TO SCALE15'20'20'BERMBERMLC44' R/WTYPICAL SECTIONNOT TO SCALER/WR/WBooklet Pg 2 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER accepting the Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Final Report dated April 2022, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jerry Fahy, 925.313.2276 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Final Report, Countywide. BACKGROUND: The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) demonstrates that Contra Costa County is committed to enhancing active transportation by promoting access and connectivity for all modes of travel besides automobile travel. By definition, active transportation comprises any self-propelled, human-powered travel, such as walking and bicycling. The purpose of Contra Costa County’s ATP is to serve as a roadmap to enhance active transportation safety and mode share for unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County by providing a comprehensive look at the County’s active transportation needs and opportunities. The plan outlines investments in new bicycle facilities, upgraded crossings, enhanced trail connections, and improved walkways. These investments prioritize improvements within historically underserved and impacted communities. The ATP Final Report is the culmination of three years of effort by County staff and their consultants. The process of developing this ATP began with documenting community needs and input and builds off the County’s efforts in the recently adopted Vision Zero Action Plan. The Vision Zero Action Plan includes a systemic look at safety and collision history within the County, including improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. This ATP is intended to serve as an implementing action of the Vision Zero Action Plan, as well as guide future grant applications and funding for active transportation projects that support mode shift to walking and bicycling. Additionally, this ATP is consistent with other documents such as the County’s General Plan, the County’s Complete Streets Policy, Plan Bay Area 2050, Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the County’s Climate Action Plan. The ATP’s vision statement is as follows: Contra Costa County will have an equitable transportation system that supports active transportation for users of all ages and abilities, allowing all to travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm. The goals and objectives for the ATP were developed in support of this vision and with consideration of other local and State plans and policies, desires of local residents, and emerging trends and opportunities in active transportation. This ATP was created to facilitate the following goals: Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as collision history or systemic risk, location in an impacted community, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities. 1. Shift trip modes by Contra Costa County residents and visitors from motor vehicles to active modes such as walking and biking to create a more sustainable community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Provide a vision for arterials and collectors within the unincorporated County roadway network to assist County departments in planning for private development, capital projects, and maintenance efforts. 3. Obtaining input from Contra Costa County residents was an important component of the ATP development process. A project website was created and a number of community engagement tools were utilized to gather feedback from a wide range of residents with an emphasis on high-priority areas within the County. Community participation was solicited via targeted social media ads, community meetings, pop-up engagement events, sidewalk decals directing residents to the project website, virtual community workshops, online survey, and interactive web map. The projects proposed in the ATP were developed and prioritized based on a variety of factors such as: fatal or severely injured collision history, projects within CCTA’s Pedestrian Priority Areas, projects along CCTA’s Bicycle Backbone Network, recommendations from previous regional efforts, feedback from key stakeholders and the community, proximity to key destinations (e.g., schools, hospitals, affordable housing, transit stops, parks), projects within impacted areas as defined by multiple resources (i.e. Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Equity Priority Areas, Healthy Places Index, CalEnviroScreen, American Community Survey data, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, and the California Department of Education), and ease of constructability. Given the scope of projects within this ATP, implementation will take many years to complete. Implementation of each project is dependent upon the availability and acquisition of funding. The County will periodically update this plan, ideally on a five-year timeline, to reflect evolving needs and progress toward completion. On March 14, 2022, the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) accepted the draft of the Active Transportation Plan Report, dated March 2022, and directed Public Works staff to incorporate comments and present to the full Board of Supervisors for adoption. Since then this report has been updated and the Final Report is dated April 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt the Active Transportation Plan Final Report will impact the competitiveness of the County in securing granting funding from multiple grant programs such as the Active Transportation Program and One Bay Area Grant Program. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Caller 6770. ATTACHMENTS ATP Report Power Point Presentation April 2022 Prepared By Contra Costa County ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan The Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) provides a comprehensive look at the needs and opportunities to improve bicycling and walking throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. The plan outlines investments in new bicycle facilities, upgraded crossings, enhanced trail connections, and improved walkways. These investments prioritize improvements within historically underserved and impacted communities. The process of developing this Plan began with documenting community needs and input, and builds off the County’s efforts in the recently adopted Vision Zero Action Plan. The Action Plan included a systemic look at safety and collision history within the County, including improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. This Plan is intended to serve as an implementing action of the Vision Zero Action Plan, as well as guide future grant and funding applications for active transportation projects that support mode shift to walking and bicycling. The Plan includes: • An introduction to the project and overview of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Chapter 1) • A guiding vision statement with associated goals and actions (Chapter 2) • A review of the existing conditions for bicycling and walking within the County (Chapter 3) • Detailed feedback from multiple phases of public outreach and engagement (Chapter 4) • An overview of projects and programs designed to respond to community input and prioritize investments where they’re needed most (Chapter 5) • A set of seven project groupings for priority implementation, along with cost, construction, and funding implications (Chapter 6) In support of the County’s goals for sustainability, safety for all road users, economic vitality, and equitable investment, the projects and programs in this Plan represent an exciting and critical set of opportunities for the County’s first-ever Active Transportation Plan. 3Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Acknowledgements Contra Costa County Staff Jerry Fahy Jeff Valeros Monish Sen Mary Halle Alexander Zandian Robert Sarmiento Kelly Kalfsbeek Project Team Fehr & Peers Meghan Mitman Kari McNickle Ashlee Takushi Terence Zhao Susie Hufstader Alta Planning & Design Mauricio Hernandez Ben Frazier 4 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 22 Chapter 2: Vision and Goals 26 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 74 Chapter 4: Community Input and Collaboration 92 Chapter 5: Project Development and Support Programs 114 Chapter 6: Implementation 154 Appendix A: Project List 162 Appendix B: Funding Sources 172 Appendix C: Collision Profiles 5Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CHAPTER 1 6 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION 7Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Purpose of this Plan The Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan (ATP ) will serve as a roadmap to enhance active transportation safety and mode share for the unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County. Active transportation is any self- propelled, human-powered travel, such as walking and bicycling. By prioritizing active transportation, Contra Costa County hopes to create a more sustainable and healthy community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Parallel to this Plan is the development of the County’s Vision Zero Action Plan (CCC Vision Zero Plan). By embracing Vision Zero, the County is committed to the elimination of severe injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic collisions on County roadways. The CCC Vision Zero Plan focuses on a range of policies, programs, and practices that support the Safe System approach. Embracing the Safe System approach as part of this ATP aligns with the 2022 National Safety Strategy released by the US DOT1, and Caltrans’ pivot in their safety philosophy and commitment with the most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Committing to and providing a Safe System, Figure 1 The Safe System Approach Source: Fehr & Peers for FHWA 1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_ Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf especially for vulnerable road users, is a foundational need for the County. This Plan reinforces this notion and adds additional opportunities for mode shift to active uses building on that baseline of safe mobility. 8 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan What Are Complete Streets? Complete Streets are designed to prioritize safety, comfort, and access to destinations for all users and modes of travel. Complete Streets are unique to a community’s context and the needs of the surrounding area. A complete street design often balances benefits for those walking, biking, and taking transit, including improvements such as safety enhancements at crosswalks, better bus stop waiting areas, and enhanced bicycle facilities. This Plan, the first of its kind for the County, presents a major opportunity for the County to enhance the existing multimodal transportation network by integrating bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, and accessibility improvements using a Complete Streets approach. The County ATP builds upon many elements that help make the County an exciting destination for residents and businesses, as well as the many visitors to the region. Just as many factors influence how travelers behave, numerous factors influence what actions an agency can take. While this effort is focused on bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and safe routes to school planning, considerations have been made related to economic vitality, efficient movement of goods/ people, public health, and ecological challenges. Facilitating an increase in walking and biking can confer a variety of benefits such as reduced congestion, improved safety, comfort, health, air quality, economic vitality, and quality of life. Increased walking and bicycling will also support the County’s requirements under new regulatory frameworks, including mandates to reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Benefits of Active Transportation Walking, biking, and rolling are transportation methods integral to the health of individuals and communities. The benefits of active transportation include the following: • Connects families to schools, parks, work, shopping, restaurants, and bus stops, as well as other members of the community • Improves health and reduces the incidence of disease and obesity • Reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas production • Supports local businesses and economic vitality • Creates more vibrant and lively streets • Saves money on gas and car maintenance 9Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Environment By enabling people to make short trips on foot or bicycle instead of a car, active transportation can help communities address several environmental challenges. The most discussed, and perhaps most critical, environmental benefits of active transportation are reduced air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases. Current data show that the transportation system is responsible for approximately 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in California.2 Other environmental benefits include energy savings, less noise pollution, less water pollution, and even reduced pressure to develop agricultural and open space. 2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, https://ccta.net/wp-content/ uploads/2021/07/2017-CTP- Vol-1.2017.10.05.pdf, pg ES-6. Mobility Active transportation gives people who cannot or choose not to drive more and affordable options for getting around independently to meet their daily needs. Those who benefit most from improvements to walking and biking include children (particularly for going to school); many seniors and people with disabilities; and low-income families, for whom the cost of owning and operating a car can be prohibitive. Transportation options are also important for drivers who would like to spend less time behind the wheel shuttling themselves or others around. Drivers also benefit from less congestion, less demand for parking, and fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when more people walk and bicycle. Even a small number of people shifting their mode choice to walking and biking can have a positive impact on reducing traffic congestion. Health Active transportation allows people to build physical activity into everyday life by enabling them to walk or bike to their destination(s). Even a moderate amount of daily exercise offers an impressive range of benefits to both physical and mental health. These benefits range from lower risk of heart disease, adult-onset diabetes, high-blood pressure, and stress to more energy, flexibility, and muscle strength. Physical activity can also help combat obesity and lower asthma rates. Livability Promoting active transportation leads people to walk and bike more and to drive less, which can improve quality of life in important ways. When residents are out on foot or on bike, they interact more with neighbors. Residential streets become calmer and quieter, encouraging community interaction. Streets become not only safer, but also livelier with an increased presence of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 10 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Equity Active transportation can benefit the bottom line of households, businesses, and cities. The economic benefits of walking and biking include lower transportation costs for individuals and families, increased property values in traffic-calmed neighborhoods, savings to cities from less wear and tear on streets, less demand for roadway improvements and parking lots, and a greater ability for communities to attract new residents and employers. Schoolchildren walking near Walnut Heights Elementary School 11Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Public Participation Obtaining input from Contra Costa County residents was an important piece of the ATP development process. A project website was created and community workshops were held to solicit feedback on high priority areas within the County. Community participation was solicited through the following: • An interactive project website to promote outreach and educational materials, document workshops and events, host the online survey and interactive map, and allow the public to provide feedback on the draft plan • A Public Engagement Plan with trusted community organizations to engage on the County’s impacted communities, non-English speaking households, people without Internet access, and other hard-to-reach populations • Targeted community meetings to discuss key issues around active transportation relevant to each organization or group’s mission • Pop-up engagement events that included engagement toolboxes on educational materials, project information, event flyers, and culturally relevant engagement activities, along with mobile workshops to understand community- specific needs and increase public visibility and understanding of the Plan • Four community workshops to receive feedback on the Plan at all stages of analysis and recommendations Full details on the public participation process and outcomes can be found in Chapter 4. On 2nd Avenue in Crockett overlooking the Carquinez Bridge 12 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3101 3101 ·123 ·160·242 ·24 ·4!"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Project_Locations.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 2 Regions and Communities in Unincorporated Contra Costa County North Richmond Kensington East Richmond Heights Rollingwood El Sobrante Tara Hills Bayview-Montalvin Rodeo Crockett Port Costa Saranap Contra Costa Centre Canyon Briones Pacheco Vine Hill Alamo Blackhawk Tassajara Diablo Clyde Mountain View Bay Point Discovery Bay Bethel Island Byron Knightsen West County Communities Central County Communities East County Communities Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 13Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan About Contra Costa County Unincorporated Contra Costa County is a dispersed set of urban, suburban, and rural communities spread throughout Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County is broadly divided into three sub-regions, and the unincorporated areas include the following communities, as shown on Figure 2: • West County — Kensington, El Sobrante, North Richmond, Rodeo, Crockett, Port Costa, Bayview- Montalvin, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, Tara Hills • Central County — Canyon, Pacheco, Vine Hill, Clyde, Contra Costa Centre (Pleasant Hill BART station), Saranap, Alamo, Blackhawk, Tassajara, Briones, Diablo, Mountain View • East County — Bay Point, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, Byron Contra Costa County’s landscape is widely varied, and in most places generally suburban and rural in character. The estimated countywide population is 1,165,927, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Of this total population, approximately 174,000 residents live in unincorporated areas. A demographic assessment reveals the following: • Contra Costa County is racially diverse: About 26% of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latinx, 9% as Black, and 18% as Asian. Communities with populations of over 70% people of color include North Richmond, Bay Point, and Tara Hills. • Contra Costa County is linguistically diverse: Large Hispanic/Latinx populations are located in both North Richmond (54%) and Bay Point (58%), where more than 20% of people have limited English proficiency.3 • Contra Costa County has high income inequality: The median income in unincorporated Contra Costa is $132,600, which is higher than Contra Costa County as a whole ($99,716).4 However, 16% of people in unincorporated Contra Costa are low income, with 38% of those low-income residents living in low- income communities where more than 28% of people are below 200% of the 3 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission defines Limited English Proficiency as a person above the age of five years, who do not speak English at least “well” as their primary language or had a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English at least “well,” as defined by the U.S. Census. 4 U.S. Census 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 14 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan federal poverty level.5 The highest concentrations of poverty in Contra Costa County are located in just a few neighborhoods, including North Richmond, Rodeo, and Bay Point. The median incomes in these communities are all less than the threshold of 80% of the state median income, or $60,200. 5 MTC defines low income as a person living in a household with incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level established by the Census Bureau. A community is considered low income when 28% or more of people in the census tract meet this definition. https://bayareametro.github.io/ Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/ Project-Documentation/Equity-Priority- Communities/ • Many Contra Costa County residents get around by car: In Contra Costa County overall, 98% of households have access to an automobile. However, in a few neighborhoods in unincorporated Contra Costa County, that number is much lower. In Bay Point and Rodeo, for example, 9-10% of households have no vehicle access. These numbers are significantly above countywide and Bay Area region-wide averages and indicates a high need for active transportation and public transportation to facilitate equitable mobility. Key Destinations and Land Uses Figure 3 shows key destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the County. Destinations include: • Schools • Parks • Civic destinations, including libraries and post offices • Affordable housing, including senior housing 15Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 3 Key Attractions Source: California Department of Education, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Libraries Post offices Affordable housing Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks Schools 16 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N Impacted Communities Service to historically marginalized and underserved communities is a key factor in many grant funding programs such as California’s Active Transportation Program. This plan presents four different indicators of impacted communities6, often referred to as environmental justice communities. • Household median income – census tracts with median household income less than 80% of the statewide median, of $60,188 (American Community Survey (ACS) 2015-2019) (Figure 4) • Free or reduced-price meal eligibility – the share of students at a school who are eligible for subsidized meals. Schools with at least 75% eligible students are considered disadvantaged by the Active Transportation Program’s guidelines (Figure 5) • CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score percentile – a measure of environmental health by census tract. Inputs include socioeconomic factors, population characteristics, pollution factors, and environmental factors. Tracts with higher percentiles are more disadvantaged. The worst scoring 25% are considered disadvantaged by the ATP guidelines (Figure 6) 6 The term “impacted community” is based off of MTC’s definition for Disadvantaged Communities. These communities are defined as low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. • California Healthy Places Index – a measure of the community conditions shaping health outcomes. Factors include economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access. Census tracts in the worst scoring 25% are considered disadvantaged by the ATP guidelines (Figure 7) 17Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 4 Median Household Income Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 - 2019 More than 120% of state median income Between 80% and 120% of state median income Less than 80% of state median income 18 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 5 Schools in Contra Costa County by Student Body Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals Source: California Department of Education 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 19Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 6 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score Percentile Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 0-25th percentile (best) 25-50th percentile 50-75th percentile 75-100th percentile (worst) 20 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 7 California Healthy Places Index by Census Tract Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California 0-25th percentile (worst) 25-50th percentile 50-75th percentile 75-100th percentile (best) 21Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N CHAPTER 2 22 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan VISION AND GOALS 23Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Vision Statement Contra Costa County will have an equitable transportation system that supports active transportation for users of all ages and abilities, allowing all to travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm. The goals and objectives for this plan were developed in support of this Vision and with consideration of other local and state plans and policies, desires of local residents, and emerging best practices and opportunities in active transportation. The County’s General Plan, Vision Zero Plan, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018 CBPP), and CCTA’s Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety Approach (Vision Zero Framework) each have goals supporting increases in bicycling and walking. Other statewide plans include the California Transportation Plan and the California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan is currently under development, and will be an additional resource once published. Goals and Actions This plan was created to help facilitate the following goals and actions. 1 Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as collision history or systemic risk, location in an impacted community, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities. Action 1-1: Use the High-Injury Network (HIN) to identify hot spots and systemic risks to apply for grant funding to implement projects prioritizing impacted communities’ access to key destinations Action 1-2: Enhance equity for communities that have seen less infrastructure investment and are disproportionately impacted by collisions Action 1-3: Support neighborhood retail and local business vitality through projects that connect to and through key destinations 24 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Shift trip modes by Contra Costa County residents and visitors from motor vehicles to active modes such as walking and biking to create a more sustainable community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Action 2-1: Enable children to walk and bike to school by providing safe and accessible routes to school Action 2-2: Fill key gaps in the network by providing first/last mile connections and reducing the stress level at crossings and interchanges Action 2-3: Implement Class IV bike lanes, also known as protected or separated bicycle facilities. This physical separation of bicyclists from motor vehicles can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for all users, and contribute to an increase in mode shift. 2 Provide a vision for arterials and collectors within the unincorporated County roadway network to assist County departments in planning for private development, capital projects, and maintenance efforts. Action 3-1: Commit to Complete Streets and Safe System approaches and clarify how existing County procedures, policies, and plans may conflict Action 3-2: Collaborate with key County stakeholders, neighboring jurisdictions, and Caltrans for larger funding efforts to complement infrastructure with non- infrastructure projects and create regionally significant projects 3 25Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CHAPTER 3 26 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS 27Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Currently, Contra Costa County has 25.1 miles of shared-use, off-street paths, 56.4 miles of roadway with designated bicycle facilities, and 440.6 miles of sidewalks in unincorporated areas. These networks are summarized in Table 1 and mapped in Figure 8. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Type Miles Sidewalks*440.6 Class I Bike Paths (Multi-Use)25.1 Class II Bike Lanes 54.0 Class III Bike Routes 2.4 Class IV Bikeways 0 * Per side of street: that is, one mile of street with sidewalks on both sides would count as two miles of sidewalks. Bicycling and walking travel modes are employed and enjoyed by the community and visitors to Contra Costa County. Throughout this document, all references to pedestrians are inclusive of persons with disabilities who use mobility aids (scooters, manual and powered wheelchairs) to access public pedestrian walkways. The County’s existing roadway network primarily serves vehicular traffic for regional routes of significance. Bicycle and pedestrian networks often have gaps where unincorporated Contra Costa County meets various incorporated jurisdictions. Two people on horse- back using a crosswalk in Bay Point 28 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 8 Existing Bike Facilities in Contra Costa Source: CCTA Class I paths Class II bike lanes Class III bike routes Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 29Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N Existing Bicycle Facilities Cities and counties around the Bay Area and nationwide are using a “level of traffic stress” (LTS) analysis to help determine the comfort of bicycling in their communities. An LTS analysis takes different travel corridor characteristics into consideration, including the number of travel lanes; speed of traffic; number of vehicles; presence of bike lanes; width of bike lanes; and presence of physical barriers providing protection from traffic. Based on these variables, a bicycle facility can be rated with an LTS ranging from 1 to 4. The least stressful (most comfortable) facilities are given an LTS 1 rating. Facilities with this rating are typically shared- use paths; separated bikeways; low-volume and low-speed bike routes; and bike lanes on calm and narrow streets. The most stressful (least comfortable) facilities are given an LTS 4 rating. Facilities with this rating are typically major arterials with multiple lanes of traffic (with or without bicycle lanes in some cases, depending on speeds) or narrower streets with higher speed limits. The 2018 CBPP7 further details a low-stress Countywide Bikeway Network (CBN), that when implemented, will provide connected facilities to serve all ages and abilities, address the barriers created by high- stress arterials and collectors, and provide key connections between destinations and infrastructure for local bikeways. Furthermore, the 2018 CBPP also includes an LTS analysis of how the implementation of the CBN would increase the existing 149 miles of low-stress facilities to 513 miles of low-stress facilities countywide. 7 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, https://ccta.net/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/5b8ec26192756.pdf, pgs 43-53. Contra Costa County’s existing and proposed bikeway network consists of four primary bikeway types, as classified in Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015). • Bike Paths and Shared-Use Paths (Class I) • Standard Bike Lanes and Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) • Bike Routes and Boulevards (Class III) • Separated Bikeways (Class IV) Cross sections of different examples of these facilities are presented in Figure 9. 30 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 9 Cycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians Not to scale 8’-12’ Paved Path 2’ Shoulder 2’ Shoulder SHARED-USE PATH (CLASS I) BICYCLE LANE (CLASS II) Not to scale Sidewalk Bike Lane Sign (Optional) Sidewalk7-8’ Parking 5’-6’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS III) Not to scale Sidewalk SidewalkParking Parking ParkingTravel Lane Bicycle Boulevard Signs Travel Lane BICYCLE ROUTE (CLASS III) Not to scale Sidewalk SidewalkTravel Lane Bicycle Route Signs Travel Lane CYCLE TRACK/SEPARATED BIKEWAY (CLASS IV) Not to scale Sidewalk 5’-7’ Bike Lane & 3-5’ min. Buffer 5’-7’ Bike Lane & 2-3’ min. Buffer SidewalkParking Travel Lane Travel Lane BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (CLASS II) Not to scale Sidewalk 0’-2’ Striped BufferSidewalkParking 5’-6’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane0’-3’ Striped Buffer1.5’-3’ Striped BufferOn-street striped lane for one-way bike travel Modified on-street bike lane with painted buffer Shared on-street facility with improvements to prioritize bicycle traffic Shared on-street facility Physically separated bike lane 31Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bike Paths and Shared-Use Paths (Class I) Bike paths and shared-use paths provide a separate right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. They tend to have minimal cross-traffic and are often located along creeks, canals, and former rail lines. Bike paths are considered the lowest stress facilities for bicyclists. The Iron Horse Trail, the Delta de Anza Trail, and the Bay Trail are major regional shared-use paths that link unincorporated Contra Costa County communities with neighboring cities, recreation areas, and regional transit. In several locations, like the Iron Horse Trail crossing of Treat Boulevard, grade-separated crossings provide access across barriers. Other smaller trail segments like the Wildcat Creek Trail and the Rodeo Creek Trail provide access and connectivity within neighborhoods. Pedestrians and bicyclists using a Class I path in Walnut Creek 32 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Standard Bike Lanes (Class II) Standard bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists using pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or travel lane. Within Contra Costa County bike lanes are striped on many streets, such as Fred Jackson Way, Willow Pass Road, Pacheco Boulevard, and Danville Boulevard. Class II bike lane along Appian Way 33Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB) Buffered bike lanes are standard bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. This type of bikeway provides greater distance between vehicles and bicycles; provides space for bicyclists to pass each other; provides greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel lane; and encourages bicycling by contributing to the perception of safety. Contra Costa County currently installs bike lanes with buffers where space allows, for instance along Oak Road, Pacheco Boulevard in front of Las Juntas Elementary, and Bailey Road. Class IIB buffered bike lane near Las Juntas Elementary School on Pacheco Boulevard 34 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bike Routes and Boulevards (Class III and Class IIIB) Bike routes are designated streets where bicyclists and automobile drivers are encouraged to share the road. The routes are typically designated with signage, but some streets also use sharrows to indicate where bicyclists should position themselves on the road. Bike routes are typically used where there is not enough right-of-way to provide a standard bike lane, or along low-volume, low-speed streets where bicyclists can comfortably share the road with automobile drivers. The County has installed Class III bike routes as appropriate throughout the County, for instance Oak Road, Blackhawk Road, and Rollingwood Drive. Class IIIB bicycle boulevards are similar to Class III bike routes, in that they are routes shared with auto traffic. Bicycle boulevards are primarily on low-speed and low-volume streets and can close important gaps in the bicycle network with insufficient space for dedicated lanes. Bicycle boulevards provide further enhancements to bike routes to encourage slow speeds and discourage non-local vehicle traffic via traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and/ or speed tables. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other bikeways. In Contra Costa, rural roads that are popular for recreational cycling are designated as Class III bicycle routes. No routes are currently designated and designed as bicycle boulevards, but many neighborhoods streets in the County are good candidates, where traffic calming and wayfinding could help encourage bicycling for local trips. Bike Route signage in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near Walnut Creek A sharrow marking on Oak Road 35Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Separated Bikeways/Cycletrack (Class IV) Separated bikeways are often referred to as “cycle tracks” and they are a relatively newer class of bicycle facility. They have different forms but all share common elements—they provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily used for bicycles, and are physically separated from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks with a vertical element. Separated bikeways may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level or at sidewalk level. If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates it from motor traffic, while different pavement color/ texture separates it from the sidewalk. If at street level, it can be separated from motor traffic by raised medians, on-street parking, or bollards. Separated bikeways provide dedicated and protected space for bicycling making them an attractive facility for riders of all ages and abilities. No Class IV bike lanes currently exist in unincorporated Contra Costa County, but future opportunities are being considered where it is contextually appropriate. A Class IV separated bikeway on Bancroft Road in Walnut Creek 36 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking encourages bicycling by supporting the final stage of the trip. Locations with high ridership are excellent candidates for bicycle parking: these destinations include civic, residential, commercial, and office spaces. At these locations, both short-term and long-term parking should be accommodated. Short-term bicycle parking is temporary bicycle parking intended for visitors. Bicycle racks are a common form of short-term parking and are typically located in front of stores and other well-lit locations to discourage theft. Installing permanent bicycle racks near main entrances also helps bicyclists feel welcome and encourages them to ride their bicycle again on a return trip. Bicycle racks that allow at least two points of contact, such as the wheel and frame, provide the most protection against theft and accidental damage. Long-term bicycle parking is intended for employees, students, commuters, and residents to protect bicycles for extended periods. Long-term facilities are more secure and provide protection from weather elements. Long-term bicycle parking includes bike lockers, bike cages, and bike rooms. These facilities would likely require a third party to install and maintain. • Bike cages are fully enclosed, roofed shelters that house racks of bicycle parking, typically found at schools. • Bike lockers are outdoor enclosures that accommodate one or two bicycles and are usually leased monthly or paid short-term use. • Bicycle rooms are commonly found inside office or residential buildings and provide secure indoor parking. They may feature amenities such as bike pumps and quick- fix tools for employees and residents. Bike storage at Contra Costa Centre BART 37Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Attitudes Towards Bicycling People typically fall into one of the following categories as bicyclists: • Strong and Fearless People in this group are highly skilled and have the most riding experience. They will use their bicycles on arterials even when there are no bikeways present. Studies suggest that “strong and fearless” riders represent less than 1% of people in a community. This group of riders will feel comfortable using facilities with any LTS rating. • Enthused and Confident This group consists of skilled riders who are also comfortable sharing the road but prefer using bikeways when they are available. “Enthused and confident” riders make up about 7% of people in a community. They typically feel comfortable using facilities with an LTS rating of 1, 2, or 3. • Interested but Concerned This group of people is curious about bicycling and enjoys riding, but are concerned about safety and therefore do not ride regularly. They typically avoid riding their bicycles on major arterials unless there are facilities that provide a high degree of protection. “Interested but concerned” riders represent the majority in a community (around 60%). Riders in this group may only feel comfortable using facilities with an LTS rating of 1 or 2. • No Way No How People in this group are simply not interested in riding a bicycle. Riding a bicycle may not appeal to them for several reasons. It may be inconvenient, or they may not be physically able to ride. This group represents approximately 33% of people in a community. 8 Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587: 90-99, 2016. These categories are explored further in Figure 10. Addressing comfort is one of the most important things any community can do to create a more bicycle- friendly environment. Several studies have shown that a community’s interest in biking can be increased by providing comfortable streets with lower- stress environments.8 38 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 10 Cycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Number of Travel Lanes Presence of Bike Lanes Width of Bike LanesSpeed of Traffic Number of Vehicles Presence of Physical Barrier THE FOUR TYPES OF BICYCLISTS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience while riding on the road. It is used to categorize roads by the types of riders above who will be willing to use them based on: Most children can feel safe riding on these streets. The mainstream “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe riding on these streets. Streets that are acceptable to “enthused and confident” riders who still prefer having their own dedicated space. High-stress streets with high speed limits, multiple travel lanes, limited or non-existent bikeways, and long intersection crossing distances. 7%5%51%37% STRONGandFEARLESS ENTHUSEDandCONFIDENT INTERESTEDbutCONCERNED NOwayNOhow LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 39Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include shared-use facilities, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Shared-Use Facilities Class I bikeways, frequently known as shared-use paths or trails, are shared by both pedestrians and cyclists. These facilities are described earlier in this chapter. Sidewalks Sidewalks are paved areas immediately adjacent to the vehicular right-of-way for the exclusive use of pedestrians and may be used by people riding bicycles unless prohibited. Existing sidewalks in the county may include concrete, asphalt, or decomposed granite surfaces. Unlike shared-use paths, they are directly adjacent to the main right-of-way. include adding pedestrian countdowns during the “Flash Don’t Walk” signal phase; providing the walk phase during each signal cycle without having to press the push button (also referred to as “pedestrian recall”); prohibiting right turn on red; and automatically giving pedestrians a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at crossings. • Uncontrolled: This is a type of crosswalk that is not located at stop-signs or traffic signals. In some cases, uncontrolled crosswalks are also found in the middle of a larger block to provide quicker access between streets. • Sharks teeth, or yield markings, are typically installed before a marked crossing to notify motorists to stop and yield to pedestrians Crosswalks A legal crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, in California is designed as the extension of the sidewalk as a desire line across the road at an intersection. Marked crosswalks feature striping and other enhancements to delineate a street crossing for pedestrians. Two types of marked crosswalks include: • Controlled: This type of crosswalk is located at stop- signs and traffic signals. They provide the most protection for pedestrians since they require drivers to come to a complete stop for to people in the crosswalk. Opportunities for enhancement may 40 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan A pedestrian crossing the street in Contra Costa Centre 41Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Pedestrian Priority Areas The 2018 CBPP identified countywide pedestrian priority areas (PPAs) that met at least one of the following criteria: • High residential density • High combined residential and retail employment density • High combined total employment and retail employment density • High total employment density • Within a Priority Development Area9 with higher forecast growth • Within ½ mile of a Major Transit stop, as defined by MTC’s Infill Opportunity Zones10 • Within ¼ miles of a public school • Within 500 feet of the highest concentration (top 10 percentile) of pedestrian collisions over the past 10 years 9 Priority Development Area (PDA) is identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as places near public transit that are planned for new homes, jobs, and community amenities. Accessed at: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/ priority-development-areas-pdas 10 MTC (2017). Infll Opportunity Zone Eligibility. Accessed at: https://mtc. maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=- c50040747a804c35b8f4e12dd04d 0f05 These locations identified in Figure 11 highlight areas where conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians are greatest - where residential, employment, transit, or retail densities are highest. The PPAs identified in the 2018 CBPP lay the foundation for the implementation of continuous and safe pedestrian networks that provide the first and last mile connections to transit and key destinations. The shoreline at Port Costa 42 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 11 Pedestrian Priority Areas Source: CCTA 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Pedestrian Priority AreasUnincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 43Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N Connections with Transit and Carpooling Other transportation options, including bus stops, park and ride lots, and rail stations, are available within unincorporated Contra Costa County. All the services below offer bicycle racks or allow bicycles on board. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection, CCCTA) County Connection buses are operated by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) and serve 11 jurisdictions that include unincorporated areas of central Contra Costa County. The service includes 25 weekday routes, 8 express routes, and 7 weekend routes; the service frequency on most routes ranges between 30 and 90 minutes. County Connection also provides public paratransit services throughout Central Contra Costa. Contract services for various business parks, business, schools, and airports are available with first- and last-mile connections, along with the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Shuttle which operates between central County park and ride lots and the Pleasanton ACE train station. Pedestrians at the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station 44 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA, Tri-Delta Transit) Tri-Delta Transit is operated by the Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority (ECCTA). Tri-Delta serves Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and the unincorporated areas of east Contra Costa County, including Bay Point. Tri-Delta operates 14 local bus routes Monday-Friday, 5 local bus routes on weekends and holidays, 7 Tri MyRide vans, door-to-door bus service for senior citizens and people with disabilities, and shuttle services for community events. All buses have bicycle racks and are wheelchair accessible. Tri-Delta Transit also offers Tri MyRide OnDemand Transit that operates from 5:00 AM to 9:00 PM on weekdays. Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) WestCAT was established to provide transit connections between western Contra Costa County and the cities of Hercules and Pinole with 14 weekday routes and 4 routes on weekends. Their Lynx service from the Hercules Transit Center to the Salesforce Transit Center runs weekday service between 5:00 AM until 9:20 PM. WestCAT also provides ADA Paratransit services, Senior Dial- A-Ride, and four express routes to El Cerrito Del Norte BART. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) AC Transit serves 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, with local bus lines within the East Bay and Transbay bus lines across the bridges into San Francisco and the Peninsula. AC Transit is the third largest bus system in California, connecting with nine other public and private transit systems, 21 BART stations, six Amtrak stations, and three ferry terminals. 45Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART provides regional transit service to major job centers in the Bay Area. One BART station is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County – the Pleasant Hill/ Contra Costa Centre Station, while the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station is located just off the border of unincorporated Contra Costa County and directly serves many Bay Point residents. Additionally, many unincorporated communities in Contra Costa are also served by BART stations located in neighboring cities. Richmond and El Cerrito Plaza Stations serve neighborhoods in West County; Walnut Creek, Concord, and North Concord/Martinez Stations serve Central County (along with Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center); and Antioch Station serves East County. • Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station is located in a pocket of unincorporated County, just north of Walnut Creek and east of Pleasant Hill. This station is within a half- mile of Interstate 680 and the regional Iron Horse Trail and serves as a hub for various transit providers serving the Bay Area. The various apartments, retail spaces, and commercial spaces provide continuous sidewalks to access the station. To the east of the station along Jones Road, the pedestrian bridge and Iron Horse Trail provide a Class I path to access the station. Roadways near the station due to receive new bicycle facilities include Treat Boulevard to the south and Las Juntas Way to the north. • Pittsburg/Bay Point Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Station is a major commuter station located at the intersection of Highway 4 and Bailey Road. Pittsburg/Bay Point has a large park and ride facility and is accessible on foot via Bailey Road and W Leland Road in the City of Pittsburg. Both streets have Class II bike lanes and sidewalks. The Delta de Anza Trail comes very near the station entrance. However, due to the large parking lot, long driveways, and proximity to highway off-ramps, station access on foot and by bike can be challenging. 46 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Mode Share American Community Survey: Means of Transportation to Work The American Community Survey (ACS) collects statistics on Means of Transportation to Work for every Census geography level larger than a block. This dataset estimates the local share of home- based work travel for workers 16 years and older by foot and bike as well as other modes. Because the ACS only polls a representative sample of residents in each geography level per year (on Table 2 Means of Transportation to Work (2019 5-Year Average) Geography Population (2020) Means of Transportation to Work by Workers 16+ Years old Transit Walked Bicycle Unincorporated Contra Costa County 174,257 9.35%1.18%0.41% Source: Population from the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Commute data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates: means of transportation to work, Contra Costa County average, about 1% of the local population), its metrics are constrained by a margin of error. This existing conditions analysis only refers to the ACS mode share metrics at the unincorporated community (“Census-designated place”, or CDP) level, where sample sizes are large enough and margins of error small enough for reasonably precise analysis. The ACS Means of Transportation to Work dataset is undoubtedly useful for understanding home- based work commute mode share in residential areas, but it is less appropriate for estimating active mode share for all trip types and beyond residential areas. For example, the ACS metrics will fail to reflect recreational active travel in rural areas, active travel by students from homes to schools, and work-related active travel to residential areas by domestic workers. See Table 2 for the active transportation mode shares for home-based work trips in CDPs countywide. This information will contribute to an assessment of active transportation needs in each unincorporated community. 47Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan California Household Survey: Countywide Mode Split The 2018 CBPP included countywide analysis of travel patterns by trip type and length. Contra Costa residents drive alone or carpool for most of the trips they take; of all trips, only 15% are made by walking, biking or transit11 (see Table 3). For commute trips only, most Contra Costa residents drive alone, with about 20 percent of residents using non-auto transportation (transit, walking, biking). Contra Costans, however, are more likely to walk for shorter trips, less than one mile in length, and are more likely to bike for trips less than three miles long (see Table 3). For the majority of short trips, however, residents still primarily drive, along or in a carpool. Some of these trips less than one-mile- long have the potential to be converted to walking or biking trips, and those less than three- miles-long could potential be converted to bicycle trips. The 2018 CBPP bicycle backbone network along with the recommendations included in Chapter 6, will help to create barrier connections (freeways, waterways, etc.), improve safety, reduce modal conflicts, link to transit, and support bicycling. By creating safe and connected networks, additional trips may be converted to those of active transportation modes, rather than drive-alone trips. 11 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. California Houshold Survey (CHTS), conducted February 2012 to January 2013. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5b8ec26192756.pdf Table 3 Contra Costa Mode Split by Trip Type and Length Mode All Trips Commute Trips Only Short Trips 1 mile or less Short Trips 1 to 3 miles Drive Alone 42%73%32%43% Carpool 42%8%38%51% Transit 4%15%0%1% Walk 10%3%27%2% Bicycle 1%1%3%2% Other 1%0%0%1% Total 100%100%100%100% Source: CA Household Travel Survey (CHTS) 2012, Fehr & Peers 48 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan A pedestrian with a dog using an enhanced crosswalk to cross Danville Blvd in Alamo 49Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Strava Data The County Public Works Department has access to Strava data through an agreement with the Strava Metro platform. Strava is an app and Internet service used for tracking bicycling, walking, and running trips through GPS data. The Metro tool aggregates and anonymizes this data at a countywide scale and can provide a perspective on where and how frequently users are riding within a given region. Historically, Strava data can overrepresent recreational trips, particularly bicycle trips done by “Strong and Fearless” style riders. However, it can still provide a useful perspective on where people choose to walk or ride and increases or decreases in trips over time. Table 4 Strava Countywide Summary of Active Travel Participants by Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 Bike 20,066 20,217 34,774 33,438 Walk 22,357 22,267 43,935 50,810 Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers Data is provided at a countywide scale for the entirety of Contra Costa County, included incorporated areas. Figures 12 and 13 show the number of total trips and individual users who used Strava within the County for each month from 2018 through 2021. The significant uptick of trips taken in 2020 as compared to prior years is likely due to the impact of COVID-19, with many residents seeking ways to recreate and exercise within their communities during statewide travel restrictions. VMT Reduction Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) changes how the impacts of land use and transportation projects and plans are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The state has determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be the metric used to determine these impacts. Projects and plans that increase VMT will have impacts under CEQA. Active transportation can be an alternative to decrease vehicle travel to reduce or offset increases in VMT, and thus mitigate impacts. 50 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 Figure 12 Individual Users by Month/Year - Bike Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers Figure 13 Individual Users by Month/Year - Walk/Hike/Run Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers 51Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan A pedestrian crossing the street in Contra Costa Centre 52 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Collision Analysis In 2021, the County undertook a comprehensive evaluation of safety and collisions as part of their Vision Zero effort (expected adoption in 2022). High level trends for pedestrians and bicyclists are also presented here, with more details available in the Vision Zero Action Plan. Table 6 Collisions by Year, 2014-2018 Year Pedestrian Bicyclist Motor Vehicle 2014 18 36 359 2015 24 34 340 2016 19 42 425 2017 30 39 404 2018 24 27 435 Table 5 Collisions by Mode and Location, 2014-2018 Severity Pedestrian Bicyclist Motor Vehicle Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Fatalities 11 9.6%0.5%5 2.8%0.2%47 2.4%2.1% Severe Injuries 22 19.1%1.0%24 13.5%1.1%158 8.0%7.0% All collisions*115 -5.1%178 -7.9%1,963 -87.0% Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021 *All collisions includes all collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries of any severity Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 53Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Annual Collision Trends Annual collision trends show a rise in collisions since 2014. The total number of collisions across all modes rose from 413 in 2014 to 486 in 2018. Fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions dipped in 2016, but show an upward trajectory. Fatal collisions peaked in 2015 and 2018, with 17 and 19 fatalities, respectively. Motor vehicle KSI collisions experienced a dip in 2016 but have increased since then. Bicycle-involved KSI collisions decreased from 2015 to 2016, remained constant between 2016 and 2017, and peaked in 2018 with eight KSI collisions. Pedestrian-involved KSI collisions saw a spike between 2016 and 2017, with KSI collisions jumping from four in 2016 to ten in 2017. Pedestrian and bicycle- involved collisions account for 23% of all KSI collisions. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Collisions Year Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Figure 14 KSI Collisions by Year and Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 54 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Collisions Year Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian • The number of KSI collisions for all modes decreased in 2014, but saw an especially steep increase in KSI collisions from 2016 through 2018 (Figure 14). • The number of annual fatal collisions fluctuated from 2014 through 2018, with five fatal collisions in 2014 and 2016, a spike of 17 fatal collisions in 2015 and an increase from 15 to 19 fatal collisions between 2017 and 2018 (Figure 15). Figure 15 Fatal Collisions by Year and Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 55Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsYear All Collisions KSI Collisions 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsYear All Collisions KSI Collisions Figure 16 Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Year Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 17 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Year Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 56 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Collision Severity Vulnerable road users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, are more susceptible to fatal or severe injury collisions. In terms of collision mode, pedestrian- involved collisions led to the highest percentage of KSI collisions at 30%, with 10% of those collisions being fatal. KSI collisions comprised 10% of motor vehicle collisions and 15% of bicycle-involved collisions. 88%90%85% 70% 9%8% 12% 20% 3%2%3% 10% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% All Collisions Motor Vehicle Bicycle PedestrianPecent of CollisionsMode Involved Injury Severe Injury Fatal Figure 18 Collision Severity by Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 57Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM-10AM) Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM)KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsTime of Day All Collisions KSI 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM-10AM) Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM)KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsTime of Day All Collisions KSI Figure 19 Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Time of Day Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 20 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Time of Day Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 58 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 21 Male and Female* Involvement in Bicycle- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 22 Male and Female* Involvement in Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Female Male Parties %Victims %Census 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Female Male Parties %Victims %Census 59Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 23 Race/Ethnicity of Parties and Victims for Bicycle- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 24 Race/Ethnicity of Parties and Victims for Pedestrian- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Asian Black Hispanic White Other Parties %Victims %Census PED 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Asian Black Hispanic White Other Parties %Victims %Census 60 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bike infrastructure along San Pablo Dam Road 61Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan High-Injury Network A high-injury network (HIN), as mapped in Figure 25, was created to highlight roadways with a high concentration of severe injuries and fatalities across all modes within the County. This HIN accounts for 143 miles of roadway, representing 22% of the 651 miles of roadways the County maintains, and 12% of the 1,150 miles of non-freeway roads in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The number of non- freeway collisions that occurred in the study area between 2014 and 2018 was 2,174. The high- injury network captures 70%, or 1,528, of these collisions: 252 of the 2,174 non-freeway collisions were either killed or severely injured (KSI), and 73% of these collisions, or 184, are captured on the HIN. Building on the HIN, a series of collision systemic profiles were developed to summarize the notable trends across the HIN and extrapolate to similar locations within the County. These profiles supported the development of the County’s Safety Action Plan. The bicycle and pedestrian profiles are further detailed in Appendix C, and were also used to develop the project list and recommendations as part of this ATP. Street scene in Port Costa 62 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\HIN.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions !1, 1 High-Injury Network Incorporated Areas Figure 25 High Injury Network Source: Fehr & Peers KSI Collisions HIN Unincorporated areas Incorporated areasParks 63Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N A pedestrian crossing equipped with an RRFB in downtown Rodeo 64 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Relationship to Other Plans & Programs This ATP builds on various existing Plans and Programs. Key takeaways including supporting goals, policies, and projects are included below. Contra Costa County General Plan Contra Costa County’s current General Plan was adopted in 2005 and includes goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through 2020. The General Plan is currently undergoing an update that will provide an overview of the County’s plans to address land use, transportation, housing, climate change, environmental justice, and other prominent issues over the next 20 years. The 2020 General Plan’s Transportation and Circulation Element includes the following Fundamental Concept and specific goals and policies related to active transportation. When the County’s 2040 General Plan is adopted, goals and policies from that plan shall supersede those that follow. Fundamental Concept Streets should be designed, maintained according to the “Complete Streets” philosophy, which accomplishes the following: • Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities. • Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network. • Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. • Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. • Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way. • Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions. • Directs the use of the latest and best design standards. • Directs that complete streets solutions fit in with context of the community. • Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. 65Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Goals 5-A: To provide a safe, efficient, and integrated multimodal transportation system. 5-G: To provide access to new development while minimizing conflict between circulation facilities and land uses. 5-I: To encourage use of transit. 5-J: To reduce single-occupant auto commuting and encourage walking and bicycling. 5-K: To provide basic accessibility to all residents, which includes access to emergency services, public services and utilities, health care, food and clothing, education and employment, mail and package distribution, freight delivery, and a certain amount of social and recreational activities. 5-L: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources through provision of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Policies Circulation Phasing and Coordination 5-3: Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi-public rights of way where feasible. 66 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Circulation Safety, Convenience and Efficiency 5-11: The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non-motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. 5-13: The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. 5-14: Physical conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall be minimized. 5-15: Adequate lighting shall be provided for pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular, safety, consistent with neighborhood desires. 5-16: Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas. 5-21: New development shall contribute funds and/ or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. 5-22: New subdivisions should be designed to permit convenient pedestrian access to bus transit and efficient bus circulation patterns. Alternative Transportation/Circulation Systems 5-23: All efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged. 5-24: Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike, and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. 5-25: Improvement of public transit shall be encouraged to provide for increased use of local, commuter and intercity public transportation. 5-30: Street systems shall be designed and/or modified to discourage additional through traffic in existing residential areas, but not at the expense of efficient bus transit or bikeways. 67Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Climate Action Plan The County’s Board of Supervisors adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015. The CAP is comprised of polices and measures that, when implemented, will enable the County to meet its target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The CAP includes the following transportation and land use strategies for implementing the bicycling and walking network as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from what would otherwise have been trips in private automobiles. The following, included in the 2015 CAP, relate directly to the Active Transportation Plan.The County is currently updating its CAP, expected to be complete in late 2022. Goal: Reduce transportation emissions Action Items • Improve transit services to help alter long-term patterns of automobile dependence Goal: Reduce vehicle miles traveled Action Items • Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in the County • Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations 68 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Action Items • Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation (BART, Amtrak, AC Transit, County Connection, and Tri Delta Transit) • Work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, local school districts, and advocacy organizations such as the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to encourage bicycle safety classes in all schools • Update County road standards, as opportunities arise, to accommodate all modes of transportation in local street designs (i.e., complete streets). Implement standards as part of routine maintenance and striping. • Through periodic updates to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, identify opportunities to improve access to community-wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by closing gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike- and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure Goal: Maintain and expand access to goods, services, and other destinations through increased transportation alternatives (mobility improvements) and improved proximity (land use improvements). • Establish a 2020 mode share goal for bicycling by a Board of Supervisors resolution, identify specific actions to reach the goal, integrate the goal into future General Plan updates, and appeal to other agencies to adopt the same goal • Identify funding sources to support increased walking and bicycling activity 69Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Contra Costa County Ordinance Code The County’s Ordinance Code includes ordinances that address how development should occur within the County. Multiple sections are relevant to this plan, as they provide guidance and requirements on topics such as the installation of sidewalks, bicycle parking, and the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Guidance on TDM is intended to further the transportation goals of the County General Plan, the Measure C Growth Management Program, Contra Costa County’s Congestion Management Program, and the Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Chapter 96-8 Sidewalks and Paths Article 96-8.404 Width and Thickness [of sidewalks and paths] Sidewalks shall be at least four feet wide, exclusive of curbs, and not less than three and five-eighths inches thick. If sidewalks are less than six feet in width they shall not be obstructed by utility installations, mailboxes, or by planting Chapter 82-16 Off-Street Parking Article 82-16.412 Bicycle Parking Depending on the respective land use, long-term and short-term bicycle parking must meet the requirements included in this section. Additional requirements include the following: • Bicycle parking must be located near every terminus of dedicated bicycle trails or routes, or at locations that are accessible by bicycles, and if no bicycle trails or routes terminate on the lot to be served by the bicycle parking, the parking must be located as close as possible to main entrances and exits of buildings, structures, or facilities without obstructing any door, entry way, path, or sidewalk. • The bicycle parking must be located in an area that is visible from vehicle parking or circulation areas, or pedestrian circulation areas. • The bicycle parking location must be identified with guide signs or wayfinding signs that meet the requirements of sign type “3” in sign series “D4” of the then current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Long-term bicycle parking must be accessible and usable by tenants, employees, or other occupants of the building or facility that it serves. 70 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Chapter 82-32 Transportation Demand Management The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provisions of the general plan to promote a more balanced transportation system that takes advantage of all modes of transportation by: • Incorporating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access into improvements proposed in development applications; • Incorporating the overall intent and purpose of this chapter into the land use review and planning process; • Allowing requests for reductions in the off-street parking requirements for residential or nonresidential projects that have a conceptual TDM Program; • Providing information to residents on opportunities for walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transit. MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan MTC’s Regional Active Transportation Plan, currently underway, will help guide investments in infrastructure and regional policy development and implementation supporting Plan Bay Area 2050. The key elements of the Active Transportation Plan include: • Development of a regional active transportation network, a Plan Bay Area Blueprint strategy, that builds off adopted state, regional, county, and local bicycle / pedestrian / trail plans; • Stakeholder engagement through a Technical Advisory Committee and community- based organizations; • Policy and program analysis, updated with an equity and Vision Zero focus, including the review and update of MTC’s Complete Streets Policy (MTC Resolution 3765); • Funding analysis to identify the constraints and potential future funding scenarios to build-out a regional active transportation network and implement the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies; and • Creation of a prioritized 5-Year Implementation Plan, in coordination with Plan Bay Area 2050’s Implementation Plan, that will include actions to support active transportation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s transportation-related needs. 71Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Contra Costa County Safety Action and Vision Zero Plans In 2020, the County kick-started a safety planning process for unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, which began as a Safety Action Plan (funded as a Systemic Safety Analysis Report, SSAR, from Caltrans) and evolved into a Vision Zero Action Plan. CCTA’s Vision Zero Framework served as the base for the CCC Vision Zero Plan’s HIN, also used for this report. To provide the latest information, five years of the most recent collision data were analyzed to create a collision landscape analysis, high-injury network (HIN), and collision profiles, which was then matched with countermeasures to reduce these types of collisions on County roadways. This analysis was presented to a stakeholder advisory group to solicit feedback and identify an engineering-focused project list for the County to use when applying for grant funding. Community feedback was also collected as part of the Safety Action Plan, where feedback was gathered around safety when walking, biking, and driving in the County. The Vision Zero Plan focused on implementation strategies that fall under the Vision Zero Core Elements: Leadership and Commitment, Safe Roadways and Safe Speeds, and Data- Driver Approach, Transparency, and Accountability. Additional safety countermeasures were identified to include road users and post-crash care, supplementing the Safety Action Plan’s engineering- focused countermeasures on roadway design and speed reduction. The countermeasures were organized under five categories: safe road users, safe speeds, post-crash care, equity considerations, and emerging technologies. The Vision Zero Plan also included a list of existing programs, funding sources, and an action plan for the County. The Action Plan strategies to reduce KSI collisions on County roadways identified the party/parties responsible for leading the action and supporting agencies. The Safety Action and Vision Zero Plans identified locations throughout the County with high concentrations of collisions, including a special emphasis on bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions. The findings from these plans allowed the ATP team to identify key issues and risk factors associated with these locations and take a systemic approach to identify other locations throughout the County with similar risk profiles. 72 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CCTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CCTA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2018, focused on creating a plan to encourage and support walking and biking in Contra Costa County. Elements of this Plan included a County Baseline Report to better understand the on-the- ground conditions in each sub- region along with webmaps that allow local jurisdictions to edit their bicycle and pedestrian networks and coordinate regionally significant facilities. The Plan covers topics such as low-stress bikeway networks, connectivity to transit, bicycle super highways, advanced treatments for pedestrian and bicycle design, and a level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis for the highest ranked priority projects. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian backbone network and pedestrian priority areas were used as a starting point for many of the projects outlined in this plan. Caltrans District 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Caltrans District 4’s Active Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes pedestrian needs along and across the State Highway System (SHS) to guide future infrastructure investments. The Plan includes maps and charts that describe the walking conditions and connections to transit along the SHS in District 4. A prioritized list and map of location-based pedestrian needs is provided, accompanied by a toolkit and implementation strategy to address these needs with local partners and the public. The list of recommended projects in the Plan will overlap with active transportation projects to be constructed through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). While the Caltrans plans focus on state-owned facilities, the District 4 Plan has some overlap with projects in this ATP, and close coordination and collaboration will be needed for successful implementation. Examples include: additional Class I trail improvements at Bailey Rd and Highway 4, reconstruction of the Hilltop Drive/I-80 interchange to improve bicycle and pedestrian access, and a trail connection along Highway 4 between Concord and Bay Point. 73Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CHAPTER 4 74 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan COMMUNITY INPUT AND COLLABORATION 75Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan and advertising methods are detailed in the following sections. The ATP included a two-phase engagement process: Phase 1 Phase 1 focused on listening to the community and soliciting feedback on existing conditions, access to key destinations, and community concerns about accessibility and comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling. This phase of the project lasted from March through July 2021, to accomplish the following goals: • Develop a shared vision and goals for active transportation in Contra Costa County • Identify key corridors and destinations, active transportation infrastructure gaps, and opportunities for improvement Engagement Strategy This section provides an overview of the public outreach process that was central to the development of the recommendations in this plan. Hearing from a diverse and representative group of County residents and stakeholders was vital for the development of this Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Using in-person and virtual engagement methods the project team made reasonable efforts to reach a diverse group of Contra Costa County residents and stakeholders while following appropriate health and safety protocols in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. An example of this effort includes installing temporary decals throughout the County that included a QR code to the Plan’s website. Digital engagement materials were made available in English and Spanish. Specific engagement Phase 2 Phase 2 presented draft infrastructure recommendations to the community. Draft recommended improvements were presented to the community for review and comment. Phase 2 was completed between the months of September 2021 and January 2022. Phase 2 had the following goals: • Ensuring all stakeholders were provided with information about the draft project recommendations • Receiving feedback on desired adjustments to draft project recommendations 76 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Engagement Events and Activities A multi-pronged approach of events and activities was used to increase participation from the community at large with a focus on historically underserved communities. Phase 1 of community engagement included two virtual community workshops, an interactive webmap on the project website, an online survey, and three virtual stakeholder meetings. Phase 2 included one virtual community workshop, an interactive webmap containing project recommendations, five community pop-up events, and presentations at six targeted community meetings. Community Engagement Themes Throughout both phases of the ATP’s community engagement process, several key themes emerged from County residents and stakeholders: • Need to improve safety, especially for safe routes to schools • Need to improve access to essential destinations like parks, trails, and grocery stores • Desire to use trails as low- stress connectors between unincorporated areas and cities • Need to prioritize transit access, especially walking improvements (sidewalks and crossings) around bus stops • Need to provide more separated bikeways and trails throughout the County because they provide the most separation from vehicles • Need to provide traffic calming and more direct walking and biking options • Need to provide secure bike parking at community destinations across the County • Need to improve walking- and bicycle-focused wayfinding signs, especially along trails • Need to provide more amenities (benches, water fountains, lighting, etc.) along trails • Need to provide educational programs and opportunities, including driver education • Desire from cities and other jurisdictions to coordinate with the County on maintenance (capital and scheduling) • Need to address large or asymmetrical intersections, multilane roadways, and high-speed traffic on local and mountain roads, which can be mental and physical barriers for walking, biking, and rolling. 77Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Community outreach at Hercules Branch Library 78 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Afternoon workshop interactive PollEverywhere question Phase 1 Outreach Community Workshops Two virtual community workshops were hosted during the month of May 2021. The workshops were held virtually under strict COVID-19 health and safety protocols. The project team promoted the workshops using Contra Costa County Public Works social media and through community partners. During the workshops, attendees shared their thoughts on walking, bicycling, and rolling in unincorporated Contra Costa County, places they walk and roll to, and what their priorities and vision for the future are. Workshop attendees highlighted the need for better connections to destinations, including the following: • Parks, recreational centers, and community centers • Transit including BART and bus stops • Schools • Retail areas, including grocery stores • The Bay Trail, the shoreline, and other open space areas Other high priorities for residents included the need for traffic calming, especially on residential streets and cross-county corridors (e.g., San Pablo Dam Road), and the need for more separated and off-street facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Evening workshop interactive PollEverywhere question. 79Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Screenshot from the afternoon workshop. 80 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Website and Interactive Webmap A project website (www.activecontracosta.org) and interactive webmap were created to provide a central location where the community could review the goals of the project, learn about upcoming events, and provide input on specific issues found throughout the County roadways. The interactive webmap allowed users to drop points at specific locations where they found safety and connectivity concerns, as well as draw current or potential routes that they would consider walking, biking, or rolling. To provide additional context, the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks were included in the map showcasing the network throughout unincorporated areas. The community provided 97 comments; fellow website users liked/disliked those comments 170 times. The community provided ten narrative comments via the “contact us” form. Within unincorporated areas, comments focused on the following key themes: • Cross-county corridors like San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, Alhambra Valley Road, and Appian Way are, in some cases, the only practical way to move between destinations. However, these corridors prioritize cars and are stressful for bicyclists and pedestrians • The County should complete sidewalks and improve intersection safety around schools • Gaps in the Bay Trail should be closed, and with better access provided to the Bay Trail, canal trails, and other separated facilities Active Contra Costa Website 81Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Stakeholder Meetings The County facilitated three virtual stakeholder meetings. Each meeting included stakeholders around three thematic groups: community- based organizations (CBOs), schools, and partner agencies. The following organizations and agencies participated in stakeholder meetings: • City of San Ramon • City of Orinda • City of San Pablo • City of Antioch • City of Richmond • City of Walnut Creek • BART • AC Transit • CCTA • John Swett Unified School District • District 1 Supervisor’s Office • Bike East Bay • WCCTAC • 511 Contra Costa County • Mobility Matters Online Survey The community survey was available on the project website from April through August 2021. It requested information from residents about their current travel behavior, comfort levels walking and biking, and allowed the general public to provide additional feedback about general active transportation issues in Contra Costa County. The survey was completed by 226 community members. A high percentage (76%) of respondents indicated they walk multiple times a week, and 54% said they bike numerous times a week. Respondents used public transit occasionally, with only 14% regularly riding public transit, but 69% reported riding the bus or train occasionally. 84% percent of respondents said they walk or bike for their health and “enjoy walking/biking.” 75% of respondents said they currently walk or bike “for fun/exercise” and to parks and stores. Respondents also provided information about their comfort while walking, biking, or rolling around Contra Costa County. Currently, 71% of respondents feel comfortable walking around their community, and 43% feel comfortable biking in their community. 53% of all respondents felt that more/ better bike lanes, greater separation from vehicles, more sidewalks, and safer ways to cross the street would encourage them to walk, bike, and roll more around their communities. 82 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Takeaways from stakeholder meetings included the following: • Need to improve access to community destinations like parks, schools, and community centers (for all ages and abilities) • Need to build better first-last mile connections to major transit stops and stations • Need to improve the existing walking and bicycling facilities to help increase the number of active and shared trips across the County • Need for the County to partner with community organizations and other County agencies to promote and educate the community about walking and biking options • Need to slow vehicle speeds to make walking, rolling, and bicycling more comfortable Community outreach at Alamo Farmer’s Market 83Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Phase 2 Outreach The second phase of outreach began in October 2021 and focused on gathering feedback on the proposed projects to be included in this plan. Community outreach at Bay Point Branch Library 84 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Interactive Webmap In October 2021, the interactive webmap was updated to include the draft recommendations for the pedestrian and bicycle networks. Users were able to like, dislike, and leave comments on draft proposed projects. The webmap also allowed users to trace additional recommendations along roadways in need of sidewalk and/or improved bicycle facilities for the project team to consider. The Contra Costa County Public Works Facebook and Instagram pages as well as complementary social media ads were used to promote the project website. The County ran focused ads, in English and Spanish, on Facebook and Instagram in unincorporated areas of the County to increase participation and reach a larger share of the community. The County also ran targeted ads in disadvantaged communities and communities with lower exposure to other engagement methods. Ads were shown to over 32,000 people, resulting in almost 800 website visits from ads alone. Between September and December 2021, about 1,400 stakeholders visited the project website (over 2,100 visits over the project’s life). Users provided over 150 likes/dislikes and 23 comments on project recommendations. Users also added 35 different roadway segments for the project team to consider for additional project recommendations. The top three community-liked projects included: • Danville Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes • Stone Valley Road Buffered Bike Lanes • San Pablo Dam Road Separated Bikeway An example of the social media ad on Facebook. 85Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan The project recommendations interactive map showing the Stone Valley Road recommendation. Likes and comments on the Iron Horse Trail extension recommendation. 86 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Community Pop-Up Events The County hosted pop-up tables at five different community spaces: Lefty Gomez Park in Rodeo, Alamo Certified Farmers’ Market, Pittsburg/ Bay Point BART Station, Bay Point Brach Public Library, and Hercules Branch Public Library. Brief descriptions of each event follow. Lefty Gomez Park – Rodeo Project staff hosted a pop-up table at Lefty Gomez Park at the Rodeo 2021 Chili and Salsa Cookoff and Car Show (11 AM – 3 PM). The event included food, entertainment, dozens of vehicles, and vendors. The project team prepared countywide maps to gather feedback on walking and bicycling conditions throughout the unincorporated County. The project team also promoted the project website. Project staff engaged with about 30 residents during the event. Community members talking to project staff during the event and a collection of comments left on the plotted map. Image source: Alta and Fehr & Peers 87Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Alamo Certified Farmers’ Market – Alamo Project staff hosted a pop-up event at the Alamo Certified Farmer’s Market during Sunday morning and afternoon (9 AM – 1:30 PM) on October 17, 2021. Project staff presented draft recommendations to the public and handed out business cards to direct people to the project website containing proposed network recommendations. The team engaged with over ten residents during the event. Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station – Bay Point On Wednesday, October 20th, 2021 the project team distributed business cards promoting the project website at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station during the evening commute period (4-7 PM). The project team distributed over 200 business cards and answered all questions people had regarding the Active Transportation Plan and recommendations process. The Farmer’s Market booth allowed residents to point out areas they wanted to discuss across the County. Image sources: Alta and Fehr & Peers. The project team distributed business cards (right image) to BART riders entering and leaving the station. Image sources: Alta. 88 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bay Point Branch Public Library – Bay Point Project staff hosted a table at the Bay Point Public Library during the afternoon school pick- up (2:15 – 4:45 PM) on Tuesday, October 26, 2021. Project staff presented draft recommendations and distributed business cards to direct people to the updated project website and interactive webmap. The team engaged with over 50 elementary, middle, and high school students, along with a handful of school staff during the event. Hercules Branch Public Library – Hercules Project staff hosted a pop-up table in front of the Hercules Public Library during the afternoon (2 PM to 6 PM) on Tuesday, November 9, 2021. The project team engaged with 38 elementary and middle school students and their parents who were heading to and from the library. The project team presented draft recommendations and distributed business cards to direct people to the updated project website and interactive map during the event. Project staff gathering student feedback about their walking and bicycling routes to school. Image sources: Contra Costa County. At the library events, younger children could color walking and biking-related drawings while older children and adults discussed project recommendations. Image sources: Alta. 89Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Presentations at Community Meetings The project team also presented draft project recommendations to six different community committees: • Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CCTA) – September 27, 2021 • Senior Mobility Advisory Council – October 25, 2021 • North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) – October 5, 2021 • Bay Point MAC – October 5, 2021 • Rodeo MAC – October 28, 2021 • El Sobrante MAC – November 10, 2021 During these meetings, project staff shared prior community feedback, presented draft project recommendations, listened to feedback from committee/council members, and promoted the interactive map on the project website. These meetings were open to the public, and community members were invited to comment on the ATP during the public comment period. 90 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Community outreach at Bay Point Branch Library 91Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CHAPTER 5 92 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS 93Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan This Chapter discusses the planned bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well as supporting programs for unincorporated Contra Costa County. Project Development The plan was developed to implement the goals outlined in Chapter 2; namely, to promote mode shift by improving the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists, increase connectivity and close gaps in the network, improve access to schools and community facilities, enhance equity for communities that are disproportionately impacted by collisions and have seen less infrastructure investment, and foster collaboration between key stakeholders and neighboring jurisdictions to create regionally significant projects. Projects included in this plan were developed and prioritized based on a variety of factors including: • Killed or Severely Injured (KSI) collision history • Location within a CCTA Pedestrian Priority Area or along the CCTA Bicycle Backbone Network • Recommendations from previous regional efforts identified in plans from Contra Costa County, CCTA, and Caltrans • Feedback from key stakeholders and the community • Proximity to key destinations such as schools, affordable housing, senior centers, post offices, libraries, parks, transit stops, etc. • Location within impacted communities as identified by MTC’s Equity Priority Areas, the Healthy Places Index, CalEnviroScreen, ACS data, the Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, and the California Department of Education • Ease of constructability of project Each of these factors were identified by the project team, key stakeholders, and the public as criteria needing to be met when identify a robust project list, that includes 6 near-term priority projects. The planned bicycle and pedestrian networks and associated projects were shared for public review during Phase 2 outreach activities (detailed in Chapter 2) and subsequently updated based on the community feedback received. 94 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Bike infrastructure along San Pablo Dam Road 95Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walk Audits A series of walk audits were conducted to assess bicycling and walking facilities within impacted communities of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The audits focused on identifying existing issues and concerns and identifying potential improvements. Each audit involved touring roadways around at least one school, existing trail, and/or community amenity, as well as locations flagged as challenging for bicycling or walking by community members and key stakeholders. Audits were conducted by the project team, with support from advocacy groups, community members, and County staff from the Public Works, Public Health, and Conservation and Development Departments. • Bay Point: Riverview Middle School, Pacifica Avenue, Port Chicago Highway, Delta de Anza Trail, Bella Vista Avenue, and Hanlon Way • North Richmond: Shields-Reid Community Center, Verde Elementary School, Wildcat Creek Trail, and Richmond Parkway • Rodeo: Rodeo Hills Elementary School, Lefty Gomez Recreation Center, Rodeo Creek Trail, and the Bay Trail Observations from the walk audits directly informed the development of the project recommendations. Bicyclists at Lefty Gomez Park 96 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities are shown in Figures 26-32. The build out of these networks is a long-term vision for active transportation facilities within the unincorporated County. The network includes accessibility and sidewalk improvements for pedestrians; bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, and separated bikeways for bicyclists; and crossing improvements, shared- use paths, and trails to benefit both bicyclists and pedestrians. The proposed networks are designed to provide connection within and between communities, to key destinations, and to serve as recreational assets. A complete list of the projects that constitute this plan can be found in Appendix A. Table 7 New Miles of Planned Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Type Total Miles Sidewalks*10.8 Class I Multi-Use Paths and Trails 62.0# Class II Bike Lanes 36.2 Class II Buffered Bike Lanes 24.7 Class III Bike Routes & Bike Boulevards 42.7 Class IV Separated Bikeways 24.3 Notes: * Per side of street: that is, one mile of street with sidewalks on both sides would count as two miles of sidewalks. # This total includes future regional trails to be led by partner agencies. See Chapter 6 for more details. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. 97Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 26 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Countywide) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 98 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N ∙4 !"80 Barrett Ave SanPabloAveS y c a m o re AveWillowAve Lupine R d Redwood RdRheem Ave FalconWay 23rd StR ichm ondP k w y Ohio Ave7th StAppi anWayCastro StPinoleVa ll e y R d Garvin AveRumrillBlvd S a n PabloDam Rd Mar ket Ave Va ll e y Vi e wR d OlindaRd AtlasR d Giant RdHilltop Dr 6th StKeyBl vdBlumeDrP h e a s a n t D r Amador St RefugioValley R d A rli n g t o n BlvdShaneDrGiantHwyS i m a s Ave 29th StM a y RdS h a w n D rP a r r Blvd A m end RdTur quoi seD r C a s tro R a n c h Rd A lha m b r a Valley R d Tara H i l l s D r ElPortal D rMacdonald Ave%&580C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 27 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (North Richmond/El Soberante area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks 99Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 28 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Rodeo/Crockett area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks ∙4 !"80 Sycamore AveWil l ow A v eVi ewpointeBlvd LupineRdRedwoodRdSanPabloAve Franklin C a n y o n R dParker AveCum mings S k y wa y P o m o na St Refugio Valley RdTurquoiseDr CoralD rVista d e l Río Mc Ewe n RdCr o c k e t t Blvd C a r q uin e zScenic D r S ev e n th S t C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions 100 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 29 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Martinez/Pacheco area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks ·242 ·4 Marsh DrCenter AveHoweRd Muir R dBrownStPineStEscobarSt Chilpancingo Pkwy S o l a n o WayConcor d A v e Franklin Canyon R d A r no l d D r Pa c he c oBlvdM a rin a Vi sta Ave Alhambra AveA r n o l d In d u s tria lW a y E StImhoffDr M o relloA v e Waterfro n t R d Be r r e l l e s s a S t PortChicagoHwyB a t e s A v eShell AveOlivera Rd %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions 101Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 30 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Bay Point/Port Chicago area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks ·242 ·4 A r n o ld In d ustrialW a y Canal Rd W Leland Rd N Parkside DrDriftwoodDr EvoraR d Willow Pass Rd SanMarcoBlvdPort ChicagoHwy Polaris Dr B aileyRdBates Ave C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions 102 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 31 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Tri-Valley area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks ∙24 Ti ceCr e e k DrRos s moor P kw y D e e r Hi l l R d M o u n t D i a b l o B lv d D iab loR dLa G o n d a WayDanvi l le B lvd San Mi guelDr Olympic B lvd SMai nStBlvdW ayL iv o r n a Rd MoragaRdTic eValley B lv d G l e n si d e DrBlackhawkRdSBroadwaySaintMary'sRdCrestAv e MirandaAveSaklan I ndi a nDrC a m in o Pabl oCaminoDiablo RheemB l v d GreenValleyRdWa l n u t Blv d Rudgear Rd StoneValleyRd %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions 103Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Figure 32 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Eastern area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Unincorporated areas Incorporated areas Parks ·160 ·4 Hillcrest AveJam es Donlon B l v d Lone Tree Way Main StSomersvilleRdL StS a n d Creek R d E Leland Rd RailroadAveDeerValleyRdWilbur Ave N Parkside D r Laurel Rd Va s c o R d Buchanan Rd Empire AveE 18th St A StGStBalfour Rd Br e n t wo o dBlvd M arsh Cr eek R dMo r g a n Terri toryRdByron HwyC a m in o D ia b lo Bixler RdSellers AveE Cypress R d N erolyRd Country Hills D rHarborSt Walnut BlvdC:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions 104 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Overview of Improvements Future walking and bicycling trips will depend on a number of factors such as the availability of well connected facilities, appropriate education and promotion programs designed to encourage walking and bicycling, and location, density, and type of future land development. With appropriate bicycling and walking facilities in place and implementation of employer trip reduction programs, the number of people walking or biking to work, school, or to shop could increase above its current rate. CCTA’s 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan12 provides guidance on corridor improvements with context sensitive design in Appendix C, Best Practices: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments and acknowledges a need for trade-offs across competing modal demands. A layered network approach balances tradeoffs by prioritizing certain modes on identified streets and providing continuity for the chosen mode while accommodating other modes or encouraging use on parallel streets. In planning for a countywide plan such as this one, this approach was taken for project recommendations by providing select treatments for a prioritized mode while ensuring increased safety for all modes. Once recommendations are implemented, the active transportation network will provide safer and more direct travel paths throughout the County. Improvements are in line with the following criteria: • Connection to Activity Centers: Schools, community facilities, the library, the community center, parks, open space, and neighborhood commercial districts should be accessible by foot or bicycle. Residents should be able to walk or bike from home to both local and regional destinations. • Comfort & Access: The system should provide safe and equitable access from all areas of the County to both commute and recreation destinations and should be designed for people of all levels of ability. • Purpose: Each link in the system should serve one or a combination of these purposes: encourage bicycling for recreation, improve facilities for commuting, and provide a connection to the Countywide bike network. On street facilities should be continuous and direct, and off-street facilities should have a minimal number of arterial crossings and uncontrolled intersections. • Connection to Regional Networks: The system should provide access to regional bikeways, regional trails, and routes in adjacent communities. 12 Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – Appendix C: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments. July 2018. https://ccta.net/ wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5b86dd3529524.pdf 105Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Crossing and Intersection Improvements Several crossing improvements are recommended, either as standalone spot improvements or as part of broader projects to increase safety and comfort for pedestrians, as well as bicyclists at certain trail crossings. The decision to install a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled location should be based on engineering judgement, engineering study, or other considerations as appropriate for each individual case. Some of these considerations may include the following: • Pedestrian travel demand, typically 20 pedestrians per hour or more • Service of a facility or use that generates higher pedestrian travel or serves a vulnerable population (for example children, elderly, or persons with disabilities). This may include schools, hospitals, senior centers, recreation/ community centers, libraries, parks, and trails. Service of such facilities can justify pedestrian improvements to areas of less demand than 20 pedestrians per hour. • Sight distance requirements, using appropriate stopping sight distance guidance from AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets or Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual • Delay to pedestrian movements • Distance to nearest crossing • Guidance of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Additional improvements for crossings at uncontrolled locations, such as the use of high visibility markings, median refuges, and curb extensions, should be considered as appropriate. Further design guidance on the determination of crossing treatments can be found in Appendix C, Best Practices: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments of the 2018 CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the FHWA STEP Guide.13 Signalized intersections are typically large with multiple lanes of traffic in each direction, especially where arterial and/ or collectors roadways meet. At these locations, crosswalks are typically marked, but have long crossing distances. In some cases, intersections may have slip lanes, further lengthening crossing distances for pedestrians and bicyclists; these lanes are not signalized, allowing vehicles to make these turns at higher speeds. At all-way stop controlled intersections, vehicles stop and give the right-of-way 13 Federal Highway Administration. Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP). https://safety.fhwa. dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/ 106 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan to pedestrians and bicycle crossing the street. Some all-way stop controlled intersections do not have marked crosswalks. Vehicles may encroach into the intersection at these locations, impeding the pedestrian travel way and cause sight distance issues for those crossing. Recommendations to enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists at controlled crossings include: • Ensuring pedestrian walk speeds of 3.5 feet/second at signalized crossings and walk speeds as low as 2.5 feet/second at select locations, such as near schools, parks, and senior centers. • Installing countdown signals at signalized intersections where missing • Installing advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk • Enhance accessibility with directional curb ramps (two per corner) instead of diagonal ramps and ensuring that all are ADA compliant • Marked crosswalks on all legs of the intersection that serve a key desire line • Median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow • Good and unobstructed sightlines • Slip lane removal, where feasible, and mitigation for pedestrian safety where they remain with a raised crosswalk or protected right- turns • Far-side bus stops, instead of locations on the near-side of the intersection or in front of mid-block crossings • Minimized cycle lengths at signalized intersections • Protected turn phasing instead of permitted across marked crosswalks • Installing pedestrian and traffic preemption • Installing bike boxes at signalized intersections, cohesive with surrounding bicycle facilities 107Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Intersection Redesign In some cases, full intersection reconstruction is needed to address safety and access issues for people walking and biking. Examples may include skewed intersections, intersections that need slip lane removal, or locations that are significantly overbuilt and require re-purposing of space for walking and biking. With Complete Streets corridor projects like road diets, intersection re-design can also support speed management and access to intersecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Intersection design in these cases can include: • Roundabout The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout keeps the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts. When considering roundabouts, designers should assess opportunities to include bikeways and consider pedestrian desire lines. • Protected Intersections Protected intersections use corner islands, curb extensions, and colored paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements across an intersection. Slower driving speeds and shorter crossing distance increase safety for pedestrians. This intersection design separates bicycles from pedestrians and should be considered at signalized intersections with separated Class IV bikeways or Class I paths. Supportive Infrastructure and Programs To ensure comfortable trips for bicyclists and pedestrians, supporting infrastructure is needed at intersections and along roadways to make the trip safe and comfortable for all users, wayfinding is needed to help users reach and identify destinations, and for bicyclists, secure bicycle parking is needed at destinations. Wayfinding Wayfinding signage can be used on both bicycle and pedestrian facilities to guide users to connecting facilities and destinations. Good wayfinding signs can also encourage bicyclists and pedestrians to visit local businesses. These signs provide the most value when installed at trail junctions, intersections of key bicycling and walking routes, and at navigation decision points. Chapter 9B of the California 108 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan MUTCD provides guidance on sign design and installation. A limited number of wayfinding signage has been installed in conjunction with regional trails, such as the Bay Trail. The County will be adopting an updated signage program that includes directional/wayfinding signs. Working in conjunction with the operators of regional trails, the County will install additional signage directing users to businesses districts, schools, and community facilities. Including the distance in miles to nearby destinations on signs can encourage additional walking and bicycling to those destinations. Because the County has many boundaries with neighboring cities, the wayfinding program should ideally collaborate with cities on design and format of signage. This will improve legibility and consistency of the bike and pedestrian network as a whole. This collaboration should also include regional entities like CCTA, the East Bay Regional Park District and Bay Trail. Bicycle Parking Having a secure location to store your bike once you reach your destination is an important part of making a bike trip feasible. Bicycle parking is typically installed by developers as part of residential and commercial projects. The County’s Municipal Ordinance Code outlines long- term and short-term bicycle parking requirements for residential, cultural/educational, commercial, and industrial/ manufacturing land uses. The Code does not currently outline requirements for County-owned facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, parks, libraries, and community centers. Bicycle parking should be installed as appropriate at all these locations. Near bicycle parking locations, installing fix-it stations allows bicyclists to quickly repair their bicycle if needed. Repair stations promote bicycle commuting and provide cyclists with amenities to make their experience better and safer. Street Amenities Sidewalk amenities such as benches, shade structures (manmade or street trees), parklets, public art, and other landscaping feature make a location more inviting and comfortable. These amenities allow pedestrians and bicyclists to take breaks throughout their journey, provide shade throughout the trip, and create a welcoming space. Pilot Projects When planning new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the County could coordinate with community advocates and nonprofits to consider, if funds are available, temporary infrastructure improvements on a pilot basis. These pilot projects, also known as “living previews” or “tactical urbanism,” can be built using inexpensive materials, and may be short-term or for specific events. Pilot projects provide hands-on experience new ways to use public space. can help test concepts and built support for active transportation investments. 109Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Maintenance The County has an informal maintenance policy in place for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and often relies on citizen reports for issues, including through the County’s Mobile Citizen app.14 While this is acceptable for some maintenance issues such as pedestrian signals and other facilities that need infrequent maintenance, more formal policies would provide benefits for other issues. Additionally, responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks fall on the owners of fronting property, as opposed to the County. Thus, implementation of a formal maintenance policy that addresses both incidental and periodic maintenance of frequently used facilities would encourage good practices and address other ongoing or 14 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7875/Mobile-Citizen periodic maintenance issues. Multiple public comments spoke to concerns about debris, glass, and overgrown vegetation on County facilities, including existing shared-use paths. This can be particularly problematic for wheelchair and mobility device users, who may be unable to use some facilities or be forced to travel in the roadway due to these obstructions. Bicyclists may be required to move into vehicle traffic or be deterred from riding. To address these concerns, the County could add policies for regular shoulder or bike lane sweeping on corridors frequently used by bicyclists or other users, especially where there are no sidewalks, and incidental sweeping policies to address debris that may accumulate. Similarly, a regular program of vegetation maintenance along shared-use paths under the County’s purview would reduce these concerns. The addition of new facilities within the County, including Class IV Separated Bikeways, may necessitate investments in street sweeping vehicles that can navigate the smaller widths of these bikeways. The County could also consider entering into a cooperative agreement with other jurisdictions throughout the county to share costs or the usage of such vehicles. 110 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Speed Limit Policies & Programs Crossing and Intersection Improvements In October 2021, California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was approved by the Governor. This bill highlights methodology to lower speed limits on additional corridors. AB 43 features the following five major components, focused on providing local jurisdictions more flexibility in setting speed limits, especially regarding vulnerable road users: • Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) option to extend how long an E&TS remains valid to 14 years • Post E&TS agency can elect to retain current or the most recent past speed limit. • Speed Limit Reduction reduction of additional 5 mph based on several factors, including designation of local “Safety Corridors” • Prima Facie Speed Limits options for 15 or 20 mph in certain zones • Business Activity Districts option for 25 mph in any business or residence district The County should look for opportunities to reduce speed limits with this methodology, prioritizing locations on the high-injury network and/or those with high activity levels and vulnerable communities. Data-Driven Speed Management To identify and prioritize locations that could benefit from speed limit reductions and/or design changes, a holistic analysis of speed differentials between prevailing speed and target speed could be instructive. Wejo Travel Speed and Driving Events Data allows users to understand travel speeds of vehicles on roadways. This data, combined with the development of target speeds based on context, is a mapping exercise that could be moved forward to assist the county with prioritizing locations for speed limit modifications. 111Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Non-Infrastructure Programs To build public support and use of active transportation infrastructure investments, the County will support and collaborate with partners on outreach, engagement, and education activities. Public Works can use existing programs as venues for project outreach and to educate community members about new and planned facilities. Non-infrastructure programs also need ongoing support and funding. Because many infrastructure grant programs also include opportunities for non-infrastructure or supportive program components, Public Works will coordinate with staff from existing programs to identify opportunities for joint funding. Existing programs that present opportunities for collaboration include: • Safe Routes to School programs are led through partnerships including Street Smarts Diablo, 511 Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Health Services. Public Works can coordinate with Safe Routes to Schools programs to identify and refine plans for school safety infrastructure projects. • Bicycle Education programs provided by Bike East Bay are encouragement classes for adults, youth, and families. Programs may take the form of on- or off-the- bike safety trainings, bike mechanics classes, theft prevention workshops, social rides, learn-to-ride classes, and more. The County can partner with Bike East Bay to seek funding to provide or support free classes in tandem with infrastructure plans and projects. Bike East Bay also provides driver- focused education classes about operating safely around people bicycling and walking. Classes may be targeted toward transit, delivery, or other professional drivers, or for teen learners. • The Concord Bike Kitchen is a community bike shop and youth education program led by Bike Concord located at Olympic High School in Concord. Because Olympic High serves students from a large area including unincorporated areas, it is an excellent venue for outreach and collaboration on funding opportunities. • Bay Area Bike Mobile is a regional program that provides mobile bicycle repair for schools and communities. Community events where the Bike Mobile is in attendance are good venues for local outreach on infrastructure projects. 112 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Other non-infrastructure programs that Public Works will take a lead role in include: Walking and Bicycling Audits Walking and bicycling audits identify barriers for travel between home and key destinations. They generally include a tour of a school area or neighborhood where participants identify issues related to walking and biking, followed by a debriefing and brainstorming session to rank concerns and identify potential solutions. Audits are typically completed by planners, engineers, and other staff with experience in pedestrian and bicycle issues. They often include input from stakeholders like school faculty and/ or administrators, district or community program staff, parents, and students. The stakeholders systematically document conditions that impact people walking or bicycling to and from school or other destinations and note specific locations on a map. The County will routinely conduct walk and bike audits when planning infrastructure projects in school zones, business districts, and near other key destinations. Bay Area Bike to Work Day (BTWD) Bay Area BTWD, recently renamed to “Bike to Wherever Day” during the COVID-19 shelter in place orders, is a celebration of bicycles as a fun and healthy way to get to work. The County will participate in BTWD by hosting energizer stations on various trails or at BART Stations. The energizer stations provide participants with refreshments, giveaways, and bicycle information during the morning and evening commutes. BTWD is part of National Bike Month in May. Franklin Canyon Road in Briones 113Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan CHAPTER 6 114 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan IMPLEMENTATION 115Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Given the scope of projects within this plan, implementation will take many years to complete. Implementation of each project is dependent upon the availability and acquisition of funding. Improvements associated with work on adjacent roadways or maintenance projects can be undertaken in a relatively easier and lower cost fashion than if implemented separately. In these cases, some lower priority improvements may be implemented before higher-priority improvements, depending on the location. Projects requiring land acquisition, utility relocation, or substantial drainage modifications may require extra time to implement. Detailed feasibility and design studies based on local conditions will also be necessary for the implementation of many projects. Implementation of this plan is expected to occur: • through active transportation projects and grants pursued to implement this plan • in conjunction with maintenance and improvement projects, such as slurry seals, pavement reconstruction, roadway widening, or sidewalk rehabilitation projects • in conjunction with adjacent land development projects Completion of projects in this plan will be reported by staff to the County Board of Supervisors and on the County’s website. The County will periodically update this plan, ideally on a five-year timeline, to reflect evolving needs and progress toward completion. Costs and Funding This plan includes a wide range of projects with varying degrees of cost. Project cost estimations were developed to give a general idea of the anticipated cost for each proposed project. The cost estimates were based solely on construction costs and do not include other typical soft costs associated with projects. These include but are not limited to design, environmental, and permitting costs, traffic control, mobilization, SWPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention), construction management, and inspection. Projects were divided into categories based on similar project descriptions. For corridor projects, a detailed cost estimate was prepared for one “guiding” project in each category. This analysis yielded a low-end and high- end total project cost and per linear foot cost for the guide projects. The guide project low/high-end per linear foot estimates were averaged and then applied to the similar 116 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan projects in their corresponding categories. For intersection and spot improvement projects, estimations were calculated from recent project cost data. Each project was grouped into one of four cost range categories denoted by one-to- four-dollar signs as shown in Appendix A. The categories are listed as follows: • “$” for projects costing less than $500,000 • “$$” for projects between $500,000 and $1,500,000 • “$$$” for projects between $1,500,000 and $5,000,000 • “$$$$” for projects over $5,000,000. Multiple federal, state, regional, county, and local organizations provide funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs. A summary of funding sources is provided in Appendix B, Funding Sources.Pedestrian using a push button 117Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Construction Considerations During a development’s construction period, construction zones may encroach on sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes. Both pedestrians and bicyclists may find themselves having to make detours that may feel unsafe, difficult to navigate, or both. This can be especially dangerous for children, the elderly, those with disabilities, and others who rely on a well- maintained and well-marked path for safe mobility or for bicyclists who may encounter sudden pavement changes or construction debris in their path. FHWA provided guidance on pedestrian and bicycle safety in work zones in a webinar hosted by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.15 Alternative access routes should include the following: • Route located on the same side of street if feasible • Smooth, continuous surface – no abrupt changes in curb or grade of roadway • Maintain existing width of sidewalk or bike lane • Work zone communications should be audible and/or detectable • Protect and separate pedestrians and bicyclists with devices that maintain accessibility and protect users from equipment • Install temporary traffic control devices with wayfinding messaging, and provide workers with high- visibility apparel • Provide a temporary bus stop location if a project impedes access • Avoid or remove obstacles on sidewalks, paths, and bicycle lanes Through a project’s review process, County staff should also review site plans and traffic control plans to ensure adequate access and safety are maintained through the duration of construction. 15 FHWA, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Improving Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in Work Zones. December 4, 2019. 118 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Potential Outcomes Following implementation of the planned networks and supporting programs, substantial improvements may be achieved in the number of active transportation users within the County. Table 8 presents a comparison of bicycle, walk, and transit trips by commuters for counties with similar populations, land use, or geographic traits. By increasing Priority Projects Through the prioritization process noted in Chapter 5, seven projects were identified as near-term priorities for further study and implementation. Each group of projects will contribute to growing the backbone network of facilities for low-stress bicycling and walking, and/or remedy important deficiencies or needs in the network. An overview of each project group, including a discussion on challenges and project features, is provided in the following pages. Although these projects were identified as top priority, it is important to note that additional feasibility and design studies may be needed prior to implementation. Further community input and engagement is anticipated as these projects come to be developed. the facilities available to users, mode share may increase to levels seen in other comparable counties, which could easily result in doubling the number of commute trips made on bicycle or by walking. Because these numbers do not include shopping, school, recreational, or other non-work trips, the actual number of trips may be higher than these comparisons. Table 8 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Commuter Mode Share Comparison County Pedestrian Bicyclist Transit Contra Costa 0.5%1.6%10.9% Alameda 1.9%3.5%15.8% Marin 1.3%3.4%9.6% Napa 1.1%4.0%1.7% Sonoma 1.0%2.7%1.8% Solano 1.3%0.3%3.4% Monterey 0.6%2.9%1.6% Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates: means of transportation to work 119Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan North Richmond Neighborhood Network PROJECT 1 Giaramita StFred Jackson WayMarket Ave Chesley AveRichmond PkwyRumrill Blvd^N 120 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 1.6 MILES LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 1 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 2 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS* 2 BICYCLE COLLISIONS* N/A CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY?* DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background North Richmond is a small neighborhood with two key destinations for pedestrians and bicyclists: Verde K-8 School, located at the northern terminus of Giaramita Street, and Shields-Reid Park and Community Center, located at the southern end of the neighborhood in the City of Richmond and bounded by Chesley Avenue, Kelsey Street, Cherry Street, and Alamo Avenue. In particular, students walk and bicycle each day from school to after school programs, and to/from their homes in the neighborhood. The North Richmond Neighborhood Network project focuses on providing traffic calming, sidewalks, safer crossings, and bicycle access for people walking and biking between Verde K-8 School, Shields-Reid, and other community destinations on Giaramita Street, Market Avenue, Chesley Avenue. $8,500,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $2,100,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $10,600,000. 121Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • On Market Avenue, narrow overall curb to curb width and widen sidewalk on one side to 10 feet to provide a multi-use path. • On Market Avenue, build curb extensions at all intersections, and provide mini roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles at the intersections at 1st Street and 2nd Street for speed reduction. • On Giaramita Street and Chesley Avenue, construct bicycle boulevards with traffic calming and pedestrian access improvements. The design will include neighborhood traffic circles and/or speed humps, as well as curb extensions to provide a gateway to the neighborhood street. • Build crosswalks across Chesley Avenue at Giaramita Street • Construct complete sidewalks, closing all gaps in access on both sides of all three streets. Key Challenges • Children biking to Verde K-8 School lack a low- stress bicycle facility. • No bicycle facilities exist on Market Avenue or Chesley Avenue, two key corridors for access in and out of North Richmond. • Existing crosswalks at uncontrolled locations lack safety enhancements and do not correspond with pedestrian desire lines between Shields-Reid Community Center and Verde Elementary. • Long stretches of neighborhood streets without traffic controls allow vehicles to pick up speed and do not support a comfortable walking and biking environment. Grove Avenue and Silver Avenue lack stop controls in all directions. • Many existing sidewalks are narrow and do not provide a comfortable walking experience for pedestrians. 122 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Market Ave Market Ave Fred Jackson WayGiaramita StChesley Ave Chesley Ave Market Ave (corridorwide) Curb extensions at all intersections Mini roundabouts at 1st St and 2nd St Widen sidewalk on one side to multi-use path Chesley Ave & Giaramita St (corridorwide) Implement bike boulevards with pedestrian access and trac calming improvements such as trac circles, speed humps, and curb extensions Sidewalk Improvements Close all sidewalk gaps on both sides on all three streets 1st St2nd St4th St5th StTruman St6th StChesley Ave &Giaramita St Intersection Add crosswalks across Chesley Ave Verde K-8 School 123Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Port Chicago Highway Complete Corridor PROJECT 2 Willow Pass RdPort Chicago HwyPacifica AveKevin Dr^N124 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0.5 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 1 3 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background A key north-south corridor in Bay Point, Port Chicago Highway connects Willow Pass Road with Pacifica Avenue, providing access to multiple schools, neighborhood food shopping at Shore Acres Shopping Center, and from the Delta de Anza Trail to homes on either side of the corridor. With five vehicle lanes, narrow bike lanes, long stretches with no crosswalks, Port Chicago Highway is an uncomfortable place to walk and bike. The Port Chicago Highway Complete Streets project would study and implement a road diet to reduce the roadway to one lane in each direction, provide separated Class IV bikeways or a shared use path to improve bike connections to the Delta de Anza Trail, and upgrade pedestrian crossings to improve access between residential neighborhoods in Bay Point. $3,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $900,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $4,500,000. 125Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • Study and implement five lane to three lane road diet and construct Class IV separated bike lanes or a Class I shared use path. • Upgrade signalized intersections to include ADA-compliant curb ramps and signals, protected left turn phasing, leading pedestrian intervals, and high-visibility crosswalks. • Study the potential addition of a marked crosswalk across the northern leg at Kevin Drive, with high-visibility striping and enhancements for visibility. Depending on ultimate speed limit of the segment, a treatment such as an RRFB may be considered. • Reconstruct the intersection of Port Chicago Highway, Willow Pass Road, and the Delta de Anza Trail. Provide a high-visibility multi-use trail crossing on the west leg, and provide a pedestrian crosswalk at all legs of the intersection. The southbound slip lane should be closed, but if this is not feasible, a raised crosswalk can be provided to slow down traffic, although this may impact heavy truck traffic. • Provide shade trees and landscaping to mitigate summer heat. Key Challenges • Long stretches of roadway without traffic control encourage speeding and limit pedestrian crossing opportunities between neighborhoods. • Existing narrow bike lanes alongside high- speed traffic are uncomfortable and present safety concerns, especially for children and less experienced bike riders. A high level of exposure to vehicle traffic results in a harsh and challenging environment for people walking and biking to neighborhood destinations. • Incomplete crosswalks and long crossing distances at Willow Pass Road impede access to and from the Delta de Anza Trail 126 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Willow Pass Rd/De Anza Trail Close the south-bound slip lane or construct raised crosswalk Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) High-visibility crosswalks ADA-accessible ramps and signals Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement 5- to 3-lane road diet with Class I or Class IV bike facilities Landscaping(corridorwide) Landscaping and street trees Kevin Dr(outside of map) Add high-visibility crosswalk on north side Port Chicago Hwy Wil l ow P a s s R d Riverside DrCrosswalk at every intersection leg High-visibility trail crossing on west leg Add protected left turn phasing Add LPI 127Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Willow Pass Road Complete Streets Corridor PROJECT 3 Willow Pass RdPort Chicago HwyKevin DrBailey RdCrivello Ave^N 128 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 1.5 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 2 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 7 7 3 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Willow Pass Road is the main east-west arterial connection between Bay Point and the City of Pittsburg. It is the main transit and commercial corridor in Bay Point and home to Anuta Park and Ambrose Community Center and Garden. Willow Pass Road is also a difficult place to walk and bike, despite a high need for access. With five vehicle lanes, people using the narrow bike lanes and exposed sidewalks need to navigate long distances between crossings and walk or bike alongside fast-moving traffic. It is a high-injury corridor for both pedestrians and bicyclists, with a history of fatal and severe injury collisions. The Willow Pass Road Complete Streets Corridor project will include a feasibility study for a road diet, with the goal of reimagining this multi-modal corridor as a place that is safe and comfortable to walk, bike, take the bus, and drive. With potential to reduce the number of travel or turn lanes or narrow the travel lanes, the project will take a holistic approach to the corridor, aiming to upgrade existing bike lanes to a low stress bicycle facility, provide improved pedestrian crossings, and create a comfortable environment for access to transit. The project will also create a connection to the future Class IV facility on Bailey Road to the Bay Point BART Station. $7,600,000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST There is an additional $1,900,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $9,500,000. 129Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • Road diet feasibility study along the corridor with the goal of constructing a Class IV separated bikeway. • Enhance existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations, including Clearland Drive, Solano Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Bella Vista Avenue. These could include rapid rectangular flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons based on speed and yielding conditions.16 The outcome of the road diet study will determine the final crosswalk enhancements. • Enhance signalized intersections. Stripe high- visibility crosswalks at all legs of intersections with pedestrian destinations. Signal updates should include northbound and southbound protected or split left turn phasing at Kevin Drive, upgraded clearance intervals at all signals, and leading pedestrian intervals at Bailey Road and Kevin Drive. Pedestrian safety countermeasures should be implemented along with potential protected intersections with Class IV bikeway design and construction. 16 Use the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations to determine final design. Key Challenges • Willow Pass Road is on the high-injury network for bicycle and pedestrian collisions, with hot spots at intersections and uncontrolled crosswalk locations. • Narrow bike lanes are stressful for bicycling and are not appropriate for children or new bike riders to access neighborhood destinations. • Previous outreach efforts have indicated area residents and businesses have concerns about the potential loss of street parking. • There are a high number of existing driveways along the corridor. 130 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement road diet with a Class IV bikeway and provide low-stress bike and pedestrian facilities throughout Uncontrolled Crosswalks (corridorwide) Enhance with RRFBs or PHBs on speed and yielding conditions Kevin Dr(outside of map) Add northbound turn pocket and implement protected left turn phasing Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) High-visibility crosswalks at every leg of intersection Updated clearance intervals for signals Willow Pass Rd Bailey RdSolano AveBroadway AveAdd LPI ADA-accessible ramps and signals 131Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets (Crockett to Rodeo) PROJECT 4 RODEO San P a bl o A v e CROCKETT ^N 132 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 0 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 2 4 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background With a new segment of the Bay Trail now open from Hercules to Lone Tree Point in Rodeo, just a few gaps still impede a seamless, low stress bike ride from the Alameda County-Contra Costa County border to the Carquinez Bridge and destinations beyond in Sonoma and Napa Counties. One such gap is a three-mile stretch of San Pablo Avenue between Crockett and Rodeo, where bicyclists climb past refineries and alongside semi-trucks to access the continuation of the Bay Trail. In 2016, Contra Costa County conducted a feasibility study and community outreach to identify a preferred design alternative for providing bicycle and pedestrian access along this section of San Pablo Avenue.17 The result was a recommendation for a road diet and installation of a two-way shared use path along one side of the roadway. This high priority project for funding and implementation will improve safety and connectivity on this critical connector. 17 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6006/San-Pablo- Avenue-Complete-Streets-Project $8,300,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $2,100,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $10,400,000. CROCKETT 133Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • Implement a road diet, converting the roadway to one travel lane in each direction with left turn pockets, medians, or truck climbing lanes • Construct a dedicated shared-use path for people biking and walking with a concrete barrier to separate vehicle traffic. • Add striping on Parker Avenue to facilitate access to and from the new shared-use path, including signage and green-backed sharrows to direct bicyclists to the trail at Lone Tree Point Include two-way bike crossings where two-way facilities transition to one-way bike lanes. Use green conflict striping where needed. • Modify lane configuration and crossing markings at Pomona Street to provide connection from existing Class II bike lanes to and from new shared-use path, including new detection loops, signage, pavement markings and minor traffic signal modifications Include two-way bike crossings where two-way facilities transition to one-way bike lanes. Use green conflict striping where needed. Key Challenges • San Pablo Avenue between Crockett and Rodeo is a critical gap in the Bay Trail and regional bicycle and pedestrian network. • Truck traffic from neighboring refineries creates a high stress environment for bicycling with safety risks. • Current refinery operations along San Pablo Avenue. 134 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement road diet to one lane in each direction with left turn pockets, medians, or truck climbing lanes Dedicated shared-use path, with a concrete barrier to separate vehicle trac from bikes and pedestrians Parker Ave Add green-backed sharrows to the trail at Lone Tree Point Pomona St Enhance bike lanes that access the new path San Pablo AveSan Pablo Ave Parker Ave 135Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan San Pablo Avenue Gap Closure (Tara Hills) PROJECT 5 Rich m o n d P k w ySan Pablo AveS h a m r o c k D r ^N At l a s R d 136 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 0.5 MILE LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 2 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 0 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 0 4 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background San Pablo Avenue is the only street with direct access to and through Tara Hills between Hilltop and Pinole. While some bicycle lanes and sidewalks are present, the corridor currently has narrow sidewalks with obstacles to ADA accessibility and narrow, discontinuous bike lanes. The corridor has a history of severe and fatal pedestrian collisions. The San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets project for Tara Hills will study the construction of a Class I pathway, close sidewalk gaps, and upgrade pedestrian crossings. $1,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $400,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $2,000,000. Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • Study feasibility to implement a Class I shared- use path on the west side, upgrading and continuing the existing path. • Design and construct a protected intersection at Richmond Parkway, providing high visibility crosswalks, direct connection to the Bay Trail segment on Richmond Parkway, and signal timing to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access. • Upgrade all curb ramps for ADA accessibility • Stripe high-visibility crosswalks and add advance stop bars at all legs of signalized intersections for more direct access to bus stops and neighborhood destinations. • In addition to providing shared-use path, close Class II bike lane gaps for more confident cyclists. Study a road diet for traffic calming and upgrades to buffered or Class IV bike lanes in addition to a complete shared-use path on the west side. • For speed management, study a road diet, narrow lanes and adjust signal timing to discourage speeding. Key Challenges • Class II bike lanes are discontinuous. • Sidewalks are narrow and deteriorating, with non-compliant ADA ramps. • Long crossing distances and significant conflicts with turning vehicles exist at signalized crosswalks, presenting safety concerns. • There is currently no wayfinding or direct, low-stress connection to the existing shared- use path on Richmond Parkway from neighborhoods along San Pablo Avenue. This limits access to Point Pinole and other recreational destinations. 138 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Richmond Pkwy High-visibility crosswalk with trail connection Signal timing to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access Class I Shared-Use Trail Class I trail on west side by upgrading and extending the existing path Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) Crosswalk and advance stop bars at every leg of signalized intersections ADA-compliant curb ramps On-Street Bike Facilities (corridorwide) Narrow lanes In addition to trail, close gaps in Class II bike lanes Study feasibility of road diet to create Class IV bikewaySan Pablo AveS h a m r o c k D r Richmon d P k w y Tighten intersection to provide space for bikes and pedestrians to wait Adjust signal timings to include protected left turn phasing and LPIs 139Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to School PROJECT 6 Pacifica Ave Port Chicago HwyDriftwood Dr^N Anchor DrInlet Dr140 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 1 MILE LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 4 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 1 1 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Pacifica Avenue is a key connection to schools and community destinations in Bay Point. With four schools on the corridor, a community garden, the YWCA, health centers, the library, and multiple faith organizations, Pacifica Avenue is a critical corridor for walking and biking. On the west end, it also connects to a County-maintained canal trail. Because of the history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, the County has already implemented countermeasures at uncontrolled crossing locations and provided Class II bike lanes. The Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to Schools project will build on existing efforts to provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity with a phased approach. There is an additional $500,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $2,300,000. $1,800,000 ESTIMATED COST 141Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • In the near term, close sidewalk gaps with temporary physical separation like an asphalt berm. • Provide additional enhancements at uncontrolled crossing locations, including the potential for a raised crosswalk at each school. • In the medium term, narrow travel lanes and construct a two-way Class IV separated bikeway on the south side of the street to provide dedicated space for children biking between Port Chicago Highway and Riverview Middle School. • In the long term, constructs a two-way Class IV separated bikeway or Class I shared use path on the south side of the street between Port Chicago Highway and Driftwood Drive. Coordinate with the School District and Tri- Delta Transit to separate curb uses and users. • Provide wayfinding and crossings for improved access to the EBMUD Aqueduct Trail. Key Challenges • Narrow sidewalks and bike lanes provide limited space for groups of students to walk and bike to school. • There are gaps in the sidewalks, and drivers frequently park on the walkway where there is no sidewalk. • Uncontrolled crosswalks have had some enhancements, but drivers still go fast in the school zone with continued issues with yielding. • The EBMUD Aqueduct Trail comes near schools on Pacifica Avenue, but additional wayfinding and on-street bicycle and pedestrian improvements are needed to connect to the front door of the schools. 142 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Near Term Improvements (corridorwide) Add temporary sidewalks with asphalt berm at sidewalk gaps Add raised crosswalks at schools Medium and Long Term Improvements (corridorwide) In the medium term, narrow travel lanes and build two-way Class IV bikeway on south side of street from Port Chicago Hwy to Riverview MS. In the long term, extend Class IV bikeway to Driftwood Dr Pacifica Ave Anchor DrBay DrCanal Drto Port Chicago Hwy to Driftwood Dr and Rio Vista ES Riverview MS Wayfinding Add wayfinding to access for Aqueduct Trail 143Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Parr Boulevard Complete Streets PROJECT 7 Parr Blvd Giant RdRihcmond Pkwy^N Fred Jackson WayGoodrick Ave144 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 1 MILE LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 0 4 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Parr Boulevard is a two-lane road that runs from the Wildcat Marsh Trail in North Richmond to Giant Road in San Pablo. Within North Richmond, Parr Boulevard intersects with the Richmond Parkway, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and Fred Jackson Way. With industrial land uses, Parr Boulevard has multiple large employers, making it a key connection to park space and jobs. Parr Boulevard currently has no sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or shoulders. The Parr Boulevard Complete Streets project will provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities between the Richmond Parkway/Bay Trail and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. This enhanced east-west bicycle and pedestrian route will provide access to future industrial development, the City of San Pablo, and recreational trails along the San Pablo Bay Shoreline, including a proposed future low- stress facility on Giant Road in San Pablo. $2,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $700,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $3,300,000. 145Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Project Features • Study feasibility of separated Class IV and install Class IV or Class II bicycle facility pending feasibility study. • Construct sidewalk on both sides of the street. • Install crosswalks at all intersections. • At Richmond Parkway, install crossing improvements including high-visibility crossing, new ramps and curb extensions, and consider bike loop detectors or other passive actuation for bicyclists. Key Challenges • No sidewalks • No bicycle facilities • No shoulders for walking and bicycling 146 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Parr Blvd Richmond PkwyFred Jackson WayBike Improvements (corridorwide) Implement Class II or Class IV bike facilities depending on feasibility Intersection Improvements (corridorwide) Add sidewalks on both sides Crosswalk at every intersection Richmond Pkwy High-visibility crosswalks at every leg of intersection Curb extensions to shorten crossing distance Bike loop detectors or other passive actuation for bicyclists 147Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Regional Corridors Because Contra Costa County’s unincorporated areas have unusual borders interspersed with neighboring cities and towns, close coordination with partner agencies is critical for the implementation and maintenance of a continuous bikeway and trail network. Regional arterial and trail corridors are critical for connectivity across barriers and for access to destinations. The following set of projects represents these key connections. Some are existing bike lane or trail corridors, while others are new. All are part of CCTA’s low-stress backbone network and have significant opportunity for cross- jurisdictional collaboration. Arterial Corridors • San Pablo Avenue As the key north-south arterial corridor in West Contra Costa, San Pablo Avenue provides multi-modal access from Alameda County up to the Carquinez Bridge in Crockett. Priority projects are listed above for segments in Tara Hills and from Crockett to Rodeo. • Appian Way Linking San Pablo Avenue in Pinole to San Pablo Dam Road in El Sobrante, Appian Way is a key connection in the regional bicycle network. Projects will close network gaps with upgraded Class IV bike lanes and a critical safety project at Appian Way and Valley View Road. • Pacheco Boulevard As a main route between Martinez, Pacheco, and Concord, Pacheco Boulevard is an important connection to destinations in Central Contra Costa County. Projects will study and aim to close gaps with Class IV separated bikeways and provide pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements. • Concord Avenue A top priority project from the County’s Vision Zero program, Concord Avenue is a key connection and there is currently a significant gap in bicycle and pedestrian access between Downtown Concord and major destinations like Diablo Valley College and the Sun Valley Shopping Center. The recommended project will study a road diet in collaboration with the City of Concord and provide crossing enhancements, a bikeway connection, and safety improvements for all users. 148 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Danville Boulevard through downtown Alamo 149Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan • Danville Boulevard Running parallel to the Iron Horse Trail between Walnut Creek and Danville, Danville Boulevard is a major thoroughfare for road cyclists in Contra Costa County. Recommended projects focus on improving bicycle and pedestrian connections at the intersections of Rudgear Road, Livorna Road, and Stone Valley Road. • Treat Boulevard A key east-west connection that provides access to Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center BART, Treat Boulevard is an important connection for people walking and biking across I-680 and to transit. The I-680/Treat Blvd Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements project is currently funded and slated for construction in 2024. 18 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/44097/ Olympic-Connector-Preferred- Alignment?bidId= • San Pablo Dam Road Stretching from San Pablo Avenue in the City of San Pablo to Bear Creek Road in Orinda, San Pablo Dam Road is the only corridor providing access between West Contra Costa, El Sobrante, and the bikeway network entering Orinda and Moraga. The corridor has segments in urban, suburban, and rural areas, with discontinuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recommended projects focus on providing targeted safety improvements at key intersections, connecting bike lanes along the corridor, and providing sidewalk gap closures for access to destinations and transit. • Olympic Boulevard As the primary route between Lafayette and Walnut Creek, Olympic Boulevard represents a significant gap in the trail network between the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. Recommended projects for Contra Costa County would implement recommendations of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study in collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions.18 150 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan • Bailey Road Running north and south from Bay Point to Concord, Bailey Road is an important regional facility that connects multiple community destinations, trails, and the Pittsburgh/Bay Point Bart Station. Recent projects have improved bicycle and pedestrian access along the roadway by providing continuous sidewalks and bike lanes through the State Route 4 interchange. Projects in this plan around Bailey Road focus on leveraging these investments to further improve crossings and access to trails, schools, and community destinations. The intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive in El Sobrante 151Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Trail Corridors Contra Costa County has an excellent existing trail network that provides low-stress bicycle and pedestrian access within communities as well as beyond county lines. Many of these trails are continuing to undergo improvements and expansions. Projects focus on upgrading trail quality, providing more comfortable crossings with safety countermeasures, and closing gaps with on-street facilities. Long-term plans for new trails will require regional coordination and collaboration. The East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan map shows existing and planned regional trail alignments.19 Trail projects should include wayfinding consistent with local and regional branding for visual consistency. Refer to the wayfinding section for additional detail. 19 https://www.ebparks.org/sites/default/files/master_plan_map.pdf The existing trail corridors associated with projects in this plan include: • Iron Horse Trail One of the longest trails in the Bay Area, the Iron Horse Trail extends from Livermore in Alameda County all the way to Concord. With multiple segments in unincorporated Contra Costa, the County plays a key role in maintaining and supporting this regional connection. Recommended projects include an extension to Waterfront Road (to be implemented with regional partners like the East Bay Regional Park District) and local trail crossing enhancements. All Iron Horse Trail crossings of local streets should be considered for raised crossings and visibility enhancements will all routine paving projects. • Contra Costa Canal Trail In a large horseshoe shape, the Contra Costa Canal Trail serves Central County and intersects many local parks and other trails, including the Iron Horse Trail. The County can support and coordinate with the East Bay Regional Park District on the long- term plan to connect the Contra Costa Canal Trail with the Delta de Anza Trail, connecting Concord with Bay Point through the Concord Naval Weapons Station. • Delta de Anza Trail An east-west trail spanning most of East Contra Costa, the Delta de Anza Trail forms the backbone of the bicycle network for Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Recommended projects include trail crossing enhancements at key 152 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan locations like Bailey Road and Willow Pass Road. The County can support and collaborate with the East Bay Regional Park District in extending the Delta de Anza Trail to the west to connect with the future extension of the Iron Horse Trail along Walnut Creek to Waterbird Way. • Bay Trail With over 350 miles already open, the vision for the Bay Trail is a complete 500-mile trail corridor ringing the Bay. Contra Costa County can support the complete vision with key trail connections along Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue, and by moving forward local projects that provide access to the Bay Trail. Potential new trail corridors that are associated with projects in this plan include: • Marsh Creek Trail Along Marsh Creek Road in eastern Contra Costa County, a feasibility study is currently underway to evaluate options for a new trail that roughly follows the alignment of Marsh Creek Road. The study area stretches from Clayton city limits at the western end, to the Round Valley Regional Preserve at the eastern end. Due to topographical and environmental constraints within the area, along with adjacent private property limitations, it is anticipated that the proposed alignment would include a mix of on- and off-street separated facilities. Collaboration with EBRPD, Save Mount Diablo, and local property owners will be required for implementation. • Great California Delta Trail The California Delta Protection Commission is leading the planning and development of the Great California Delta Trail, a continuous regional recreation corridor extending around the Delta, including the shorelines of five Delta counties, and linking trail systems from Sacramento to the San Francisco Bay. In Contra Costa County, the completed trail would connect the existing Lafayette-Moraga and Marsh Creek Trails with the Bay Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Projects along Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port Costa and in Bay Point will support and connect to the future Great California Delta Trail. The County can proactively engage with the Delta Protection Commission and the East Bay Regional Park District to collaborate on opportunities to move the long-term plans forward. 153Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan APPENDIX A 154 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROJECT LIST This appendix provides lists of prioritized projects, including lengths and costs. Chapters 5 and 6 provide additional details on how project costs and priorities were identified and developed. 155Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 156 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name FromTo Miles Neighborhood/ Area of BenefitProject TypeBikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePrioritySupervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 157Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 158 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name FromTo Miles Neighborhood/ Area of BenefitProject TypeBikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePrioritySupervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 159Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 160 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Roadway Name FromTo Miles Neighborhood/ Area of BenefitProject TypeBikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePrioritySupervisor District Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Supervisor District 161Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan APPENDIX B 162 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan FUNDING SOURCES This appendix provides an overview of funding sources available for project implementation from federal, state, and local sources. 163Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan SB 1 Funding California’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funding toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements. The largest portion of SB 1 funding goes to California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure. With this funding, Caltrans has a goal of repairing or replacing 17,000 miles of pavement in 10 years, spending $250 million annually for congestion solutions, over $700 million for better transit commutes, and supporting freight improvements. The other portion of SB 1 funding will go to local roads, transit agencies, and expanding the state’s pedestrian and cycle routes. SB 1 funds various grant programs. Local Partnership Program (LPP) The Local Partnership Program’s purpose is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees, with a funding of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, and health and safety benefits projects. LPP funds are distributed through a 50% statewide competitive component and a 50% formulaic component. Both programs are eligible to jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees dedicated solely to transportation and the competitive program. Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP) California has dedicated approximately $1.5 billion per year appointed by the State Controller (Controller) to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. Cities and counties must submit a proposed projects list adopted at a regular meeting by their board or council that is then submitted to the California Transportation Commission (Commission). Once reviewed and adopted by the Commission, eligible cities and counties receive funding from the Controller and an Annual Project Expenditure Report is sent to the Commission to be transparent with program funding received and expended. 164 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Active Transportation Program (ATP) Funding The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non- motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users, including disadvantaged communities. SB 1  directs $100 million annually to the ATP, with more than 400 of the funded projects being Safe Routes to School projects and programs that encourage a healthy and active lifestyle throughout students’ lives. Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants include two parts: Sustainable Communities Grants and Strategic Partnerships Grants. The Sustainable Communities Grants have $29.5 million set aside to encourage local and regional planning goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. The Strategic Partnerships Grants set aside $4.5 million to identify and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the state highway system in partnership with Caltrans. These grants were released for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and applications were due October 17, 2019. Grant award announcements were made in June 2020. There is the possibility of another grant on the horizon, but Caltrans has not released any new information yet. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Funding Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program promoting walking and bicycling to school through infrastructure improvements, tools, safety education, and incentives to encourage these modes of travel. Nationally, 10% to 14% of car trips during the morning rush hour are for school travel. SRTS can be implemented at the state, community, or local school district level. Competitive federal funding is available through the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Depending on the existing infrastructure, SRTS may require that education, transportation, public safety, and city planning agencies coordinate their effort. 165Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Programs OTS administers traffic safety grants in the following areas: alcohol impaired driving, distracted driving, drug- impaired driving, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, police traffic services, public relations, advertising, and roadway safety and traffic records. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 TDA Article 3 is perhaps the most readily available source of local funding for bicycle projects. TDA funds are derived from a statewide quarter-cent retail sales tax. This tax is returned to the county of origin and distributed to the cities and county on a population basis. Under TDA Article 3, two percent of each entity’s TDA allocation is set aside for pedestrian and bicycle projects; this generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eligible projects include the design and construction of walkways, bicycle paths and bicycle lanes, and safety education programs. According to MTC Resolution 875, these projects must be included in an adopted general plan or bicycle plan and must have been reviewed by County’s bicycle advisory committee. California Cap-and- Trade Funding The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to institute programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program, a key element of the ARB’s plan to reduce emissions, funds several programs that support the goals of AB 32. Several of these programs relate to transportation and mode shift. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), for one, provides funding to support active transportation and complete streets initiatives, among other project types. 166 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program The TCC Program funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that strive to make major advances in environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantages communities. Eligible improvements for this funding source include active transportation and public transit projects, transit ridership programs and passes for low-income riders, and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active modes of transportation. California State Parks Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds for recreational trails and trails- related projects, including Class I Bicycle Paths. The program is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP). The County would be responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 12% of the total project cost. Transportation for Livable Communities MTC created the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program in 1998. MTC uses this program to finance pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape improvements near public transit in cities around the Bay Area. The purpose of TLC is to support community- based transportation projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, neighborhoods and transit corridors, making them places where people want to live, work and visit. Pedestrian- and transit-friendly developments are hallmarks of the program. The TLC program has been incorporated into the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program. 167Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Signage at the entrance of Kennedy Grove Recreation Area along San Pablo Dam Road 168 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan One Bay Area Grants (OBAG) Currently preparing for January 2022 adoption of its third funding round, OBAG uses federal STBG and CMAQ funds to maintain MTC’s commitments to regional transportation priorities while also advancing the Bay Area’s land-use and housing goals. Cities and counties can use these OBAG funds to invest in bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Safe Routes to School projects, TLC projects and planning for Priority Development Areas among other uses. MTC distributes OBAG funds to county Congestion Management Agencies in each Bay Area County. The CMAs are then responsible for selecting eligible projects within each county. Bay Trail Grants The San Francisco Bay Trail Project—a non-profit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments—provides grants to plan, design, and construct segments of the Bay Trail. The amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from year to year, depending on whether the Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. As of 2016, the Bay Trail Project is not currently offering grants, but may in the future. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) TFCA is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and funded through a surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area. The Air District offers funding to public agencies for trip reduction, bikeways and bicycle parking, and clean air vehicle projects. A subprogram of the TFCA is the Bikeways, Roads, Lanes and Paths program, which offers funding for bicycle parking and bikeway projects (Class I-IV). Funding will be offered on a first- come, first-served basis until the funds are spent. Bicycle projects may also be funded through the TFCA’s County Program Manager Fund. Under this subprogram, 40% of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county’s congestion management agency (CMA) for allocation. Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD. 169Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan return to-source funds. Measure J also requires local jurisdictions comply with the County’s Growth Management Program (GMP), which is described below, to be eligible for funding through two of the measure’s programs. Measure J requires that local jurisdictions comply with CCTA’s Growth Management Program (GMP) to be eligible for funding through two of the Measure’s programs. Among the requirements of the GMP is that each jurisdiction “incorporate policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments.” The Authority has been implementing the GMP since the adoption of Measure C in 1988. The GMP requires jurisdictions to work together to address regional and countywide transportation issues. CCTA works with RTPCs to implement a Regional Transportation Mitigation Program, which is built from the fees and impact programs adopted by individual RTPCs. CCTA requires jurisdictions to adopt standards for evaluating the impacts of new development on walking, bicycling and transit and also develops and maintains computer models and develops methodologies for analyzing the effects of land use changes and transportation improvements. Measure J In November 2004, Contra Costa voters approved Measure J, which extended Measure C (approved 1988), the county’s half-percent sales tax for transportation, until 2034. The most explicit source of funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects is through Measure J’s Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities (PBTF) program, which funds projects identified in the CBPP. The Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program also supports mixed-use, walkable and transit-accessible development and projects that encourage walking and bicycling as its primary goals. The measure also encourages jurisdictions to fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities through other Measure J programs including their shares of the 18% 170 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan VMT Mitigation Fees Robust and safe active transportation networks are necessary to increase walking and bicycling to existing destinations and new development. A VMT impact fee is an option to ensure new developments are paying their fair share for improvements needed to create these networks. This fee could be based on vehicle trip generation, trip length, and the share of new trips per land use type. This fee could provide a local source of funding and contribute to the local match required for various funding sources. For some projects, alternatives to reducing VMT may be limited, and a fee benefiting active transportation projects may be a viable option to offset VMT increases. Franklin Canyon Road 171Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan APPENDIX C 172 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan COLLISION PROFILES The CCC Vision Zero Plan includes a series of collision profiles to summarize the trends across the countywide High Injury Network. Profiles 6-11 pertain to bicycle and pedestrian collisions and are included in the following pages. Each collision profile includes a description of the profile, a map of the relevant collisions, and identification of applicable countermeasures for feasibility and implementation consideration. 173Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 6 Bicycle-Involved Collisions Along Rural Roadways Where Bicycle Facilities Do Not Exist Recreational bicyclists commonly travel on rural roadways throughout the County, especially on weekends, and many of these roadways do not provide dedicated bicycle facilities. This profile highlights these rural roadways where 13 bicycle KSI collisions occurred, accounting for 45% of all bicycle KSI collisions. Installing dedicated bicycle facilities is the primary focus of the profile, which may include Class II bike lanes, or widened shoulders. Countermeasures to consider include bike signage, shoulder maintenance, and a need to implement traffic calming and speed reduction treatments along rural roadways. Profile Statistics 10 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 40% SHARE OF BICYCLE KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Class II Bike Lane Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Marking Widen or Pave Shoulder Protected Facility on Intersection Approach Class I Bike Path Bike Signage 174 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile6.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 6, 2014-2018 • RURAL COLLISIONS 175Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 7 Bicycle-Involved Broadside Collisions at Urban Intersections This profile focuses on bicycle-involved broadside collisions at urban intersections. All four KSI collisions occurred where Class II bike facilities are present, and resulted from conflicts between bicyclists and turning traffic. This profile suggests countermeasures such as extending green time for bicyclists, striping green conflict zone markings, and installing bike boxes. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 16% SHARE OF BICYCLE KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Marking Protected Intersection Prohibit Right-Turn- On-RedON RED Bike Box Bicycle Signal Extend Green Time for Bikes+Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box Protected Facility on Intersection Approach 176 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile7.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A CCC_collisions_1418_snapped_lanes selection RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 7, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 177Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 8 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions on Rural Roads Where No Sidewalk or Marked Crosswalks are Present On rural roads where no sidewalk or marked crosswalks are present, pedestrians must walk along the roadway and cross when they see a gap in oncoming traffic. Four rural KSI collisions fit this profile, which comprises all of the rural pedestrian KSI collisions in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Three collisions occurred at night. Recommendations for this profile include an evaluation to assess why pedestrians are walking along these roadways, where they are going, and how to increase the visibility of pedestrians. Countermeasures to consider include installing pedestrian paths (which may include shoulder widening along with installing delineator posts, bollards, or landscaping for physical protection), installing enhanced crosswalks, and pedestrian-scale lighting. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 12% SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Path Widen Shoulder Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Bus Stop Relocation Install High Visibility Crosswalk Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Install Delineators/ Bollards 178 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile8.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 8, 2014-2018 • RURAL COLLISIONS 179Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 9 Pedestrians Crossing Urban Roadways Midblock Outside Marked Crosswalks This profile focuses on pedestrian midblock crossings on urban roadways outside of marked crosswalks. Six out of eight KSI collisions that fit this profile occurred at night. Many factors may contribute to these collisions including a need for enhanced crossings at key desire lines or removing sight-line obstructions. Potential countermeasures to consider are installing pedestrian paths, installing raised pedestrian crossings, installing high-visibility crosswalks, installing an RRFB or a PHB, and installing pedestrian scale lighting and signage. Profile Statistics 8 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 24% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Path Install High Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Pedestrian Signage Pedestrian Median Barrier Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Raised Crosswalk 180 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile9.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 9, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 181Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 10 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions at Signalized Urban Intersections Pedestrian-involved collisions at signalized urban intersections make up 12% of pedestrian KSI collisions on Contra Costa County roads. All of these collisions occurred at night. Suggested countermeasures for this profile include separating roadway users, addressing channelized rights, addressing dual turning movements, improving pedestrian visibility, and reducing exposure by installing crosswalks where absent, installing leading pedestrian intervals, installing curb extensions, and extending pedestrian crossing times. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 12% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Install High Visibility Crosswalk Leading Pedestrian Interval Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time +Curb Extensions Reduce Cycle Lengths -Pedestrian Phase Recall Additional Signal Heads+ Pedestrian Scramble Extend Yellow and All-Red Time +Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer Reduce Curb Radius SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Reconfigure or Remove Slip Lane 182 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! !! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile10.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 10, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 183Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan PROFILE 11 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions at Unsignalized Urban Intersections Pedestrian-involved collisions at unsignalized urban intersections with crosswalks make up 18% of pedestrian KSI collisions on Contra Costa County roads. Five out of six of these collisions occurred at night. This profile suggests an evaluation of crossing improvements to improve pedestrian visibility and driver compliance including striping high-visibility crosswalks, installing medians, installing raised crosswalks, a road diet, and installing pedestrian-scale lighting. Profile Statistics 6 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 18% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Install High Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian Signage Speed Feedback Signs YOURSPEED Sightline Obstruction Removal Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Raised Crosswalk Raised Median Road Diet 184 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan ! ! ! ! !! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile11.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 11, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 185Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan APRIL 26, 2022 1 Introduction •Contra Costa County’s first Active Transportation Plan will serve as a roadmap to enhance active transportation safety and mode share for the unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County. •Active transportation is any self-propelled, human-powered travel, such as walking and bicycling. •By prioritizing active transportation, Contra Costa County hopes to create a more sustainable and healthy community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. •The Active Transportation Plan works alongside the recently adopted Vision Zero Plan to better serve the needs of our communities countywide. 2 Vision and Goals •Vision Statement Contra Costa County will have an equitable transportation system that supports active transportation for users of all ages and abilities, allowing all to travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm. •Goals 1.Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as collision history or systemic risk, location in an impacted community, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities. 2.Shift trip modes by Contra Costa County residents and visitors from motor vehicles to active modes such as walking and biking to create a more sustainable community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3.Provide a vision for arterials and collectors within the unincorporated County roadway network to assist County departments in planning for private development, capital projects, and maintenance efforts. 3 Existing Conditions •Contra Costa County has approximately 25 miles of shared-use, off-street paths, 56 miles of roadway with designated bicycle facilities, and 441 miles of sidewalks in unincorporated areas. 4 Community Input and Collaboration •Phase 1 ◦Community Workshops ◦Project Website and Interactive Webmap ◦Online Survey ◦Stakeholder Meetings •Phase 2 ◦Interactive Webmap ◦Community Pop-Up Events ◦Community Meetings 5 Project List 6 •Contra Costa County Public Works Road Map ◦Bringing 130 actionable projects, generated with input from stakeholders and communities countywide. ◦Project prioritization determined by a variety of key factors, including the following: ◦Collision history ◦Projects within CCTA’s Pedestrian Priority Areas and along the Bicycle Backbone Network ◦Recommendations from prior regional efforts ◦Projects within Impacted Communities ◦Proximity to key destinations ◦Ease of constructability •Top Priority Projects ◦San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets ◦North Richmond Neighborhood Network ◦Port Chicago Way Complete Streets ◦Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to School Implementation 7 •Given the scope of projects within this plan, implementation will take many years to complete. Implementation of each project is dependent upon the availability and acquisition of funding. •Implementation of this plan is expected to occur: ◦Through active transportation projects and grants pursued to implement this plan ◦In conjunction with maintenance and improvement projects, such as slurry seals, pavement reconstruction, roadway widening, or sidewalk rehabilitation projects ◦In conjunction with adjacent land development projects Next Steps 8 •Accept the Active Transportation Plan Final Report •Public Works Department staff to utilize Final Report when pursuing various sources of grant funding •Public Works Department staff to evaluate implementation and consider periodic updates to Final Report Q&A 9 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT update on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water policy issues and the activities of the Delta Counties Coalition and PROVIDE direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative report with no specific fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: A healthy, vibrant Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) is closely tied to the physical, societal and economic health of those who live, work and recreate in the San Francisco Bay-Delta region and throughout much of the state. The eastern portion of Contra Costa County is located within the Delta and the County’s entire northern border is bounded by waterfront that flows from the Delta to the Bay. Thus, Contra Costa County lies at the heart of the Bay-Delta region and the future of this nationally significant resource substantially influences the future of the County. Restoring the health of the Delta protects the Bay which is linked to the long term success of the County as a whole. Contra Costa County is a part of the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC). The DCC is a consortium of five Delta Counties, including Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo, that work collaboratively to give one voice to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System and its four million area-wide residents. The DCC advocates to (1) protect and enhance Delta communities, and (2) improve water quality and the Delta ecosystem, while also being practical about the responsibility to provide a more reliable water supply for the State. The attached presentation will cover the priorities and advocacy of the DCC, provide an update on the tunnel project describing the Bethany Alternative, and briefly review the current conditions of water quality and salinity in the Delta in light of the third year of drought. Staff recommends the Board accept the update on the Delta and provide direction as appropriate. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ryan Hernandez, (925) 655-2919 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.10 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: No Name Given; Caller 6770; Edgar. ATTACHMENTS Power Point Presentation RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND that the Board of Supervisors has reconsidered the circumstances of the Statewide state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, and the Countywide local emergency proclaimed by the Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2020. 2. FIND that the following circumstances exist: (a) the Statewide state of emergency and the Countywide local emergency continue to directly impact the ability of the Board of Supervisors in all its capacities, its committees, and its advisory bodies to meet safely in person because the highly transmissible Omicron and BA.2 variants of COVID 19 are present in the County, and while the local COVID 19 case rate is stable, wastewater surveillance data reflecting the presence of COVID-19 and COVID-19 test positivity numbers are increasing; and (b) the County Health Officer's recommendations for safely holding public meetings, which recommend virtual meetings and other measures to promote social distancing, are still in effect. 3. AUTHORIZE the Board of Supervisors, in its capacity as the governing board of the County, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Contra Costa County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, and its subcommittees, to continue teleconference meetings under Government Code section 54953(e) for the next 30 days. 4. AUTHORIZE all advisory bodies, committees, and commissions established by the Board in all its capacities, including but not limited to municipal advisory councils and the Measure X Community Advisory Body, to continue teleconference meetings under Government Code section 54953(e) for the next 30 days. 5. REQUEST that the Planning Commission, Merit Board, and Assessment Appeals Board consider holding teleconference meetings under Government Code section 54953(e) for the next 30 days. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Ann McNett Mason, County Counsel, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors D.11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Continuing Teleconference Meetings (AB 361, Government Code § 54953(e)) RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 6. DIRECT the County Administrator/Clerk of the Board and staff to the various Board advisory bodies to take all actions necessary to implement the intent and purpose of this Board order, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and all other applicable provisions of the Brown Act. 7. DIRECT the County Administrator/Clerk of the Board to return to the Board acting in all its capacities, no later than 30 days after this Board order is adopted, with an item to reconsider the state of emergency and whether to continue authorizing virtual meetings under the provisions of Government Code section 54953(e) and to make required findings as to all bodies covered by this Board order. FISCAL IMPACT: This is an administrative action with no direct fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On October 5, 2021, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2021/327, which authorized the Board, in all its capacities, and certain subcommittees and advisory bodies, to conduct teleconferencing meetings under Government Code section 54953(e). This section of the Brown Act, which was added by Assembly Bill 361, allows a local agency to use special teleconferencing rules during a State declared state of emergency. When a legislative body uses the emergency teleconferencing provisions under Government code section 54953(e), the following rules apply: The agency must provide notice of the meeting and post an agenda as required by the Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance, but the agenda does not need to list each teleconference location or be physically posted at each teleconference location. The agenda must state how members of the public can access the meeting and provide public comment. The agenda must include an option for all persons to attend via a call-in or internet-based service option. The body must conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the constitutional and statutory rights of the public. If there is a disruption in the public broadcast of the meeting, or of the public's ability to comment virtually for reasons within the body's control, the legislative body must stop the meeting and take no further action on agenda items until public access and/or ability to comment is restored. Local agencies may not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and must allow virtual comments to be submitted in real time. The body must allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to permit members of the public to comment, including time to register or otherwise be recognized for the purposes of comment. If the body provides a timed period for all public comment on an item, it may not close that period before the time has elapsed. AB 361 sunsets on January 1, 2024. Under Government Code section 54953(e), if the local agency wishes to continue using these special teleconferencing rules after adopting an initial resolution, the legislative body must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days and make certain findings. The agency must find that the state declared emergency continues to exist and either that it continues to directly impact the ability of officials and members of the public to meet safely in person, or that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. The Board last considered these matters on March 29, 2022, made the required findings and authorized continued use of special teleconferencing rules. The Board can again find that the Statewide state of emergency continues to exist, that the state and Countywide local emergencies continue to directly impact the ability of the Board of Supervisors in all its capacities, and its subcommittees, and advisory bodies to meet safely in person, and that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. The Public Health Officer has advised that the highly transmissible Omicron and BA.2 variants of COVID 19 are present in the County, and wastewater surveillance data reflecting the presence of COVID-19 and COVID-19 test positivity numbers are increasing. In addition, on April 15, 2022, the County Health Officer again issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings that included recommended measures to promote social distancing. (See Attachment A, Health Officer’s Recommendations). Among the Health Officer's recommendations: (1) on-line meetings (teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged as those meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19; (2) if a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended when possible to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person; (3) a written safety protocol should be developed and followed, and it is recommended that the protocol require social distancing - i.e., six feet of separation between attendees; (4) seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board, in all its capacities, and its subcommittees and advisory bodies, would no longer conduct teleconferencing meetings under Government Code section 54953(e). CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Name not given. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A, Health Officer's Recommendations Recommendations for safely holding public meetings Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID 19 transmission during a public meeting. 1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of April 15, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate and Covid-19 hospitalizations have plateaued at this time, but wastewater surveillance data and COVID-19 test positivity has been increasing. In addition to this, the predominant variant of Covid-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant, the impact of which on the spread of Covid-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission. 2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person. 3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine. 4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times. 5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. 6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well. 7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting. Revised 4-15-2022 Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Syar Industries, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000, for asphalt concrete of various types for road maintenance work, for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing asphalt concrete is funded 100% by Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2022, the County issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) 2201-553 for four asphalt concrete vendors, one each located in north, south, east, and west County to ensure close proximity to the various job sites to maintain asphalt temperature and manage transportation costs. When IFB 2201-553 closed on February 11, 2022, only one bidder had responded. On March 2, 2022, the County issued a second IFB, BID 2202-542, and when it closed, no one had bid. Having no bids to evaluate, and in an effort to establish unit costs, the Public Works Maintenance Division requested direct quotes from historical vendors who had previously complied with the specifications in the bid documents. Only one vendor responded, with high unit costs caused by the recent volatility in oil markets. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Caroline Tom, 925 313-7007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the execution of a Blanket Purchase Order with Syar Industries, Inc. for asphalt concrete. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Using the informal bid process, Syar Industries, Inc., complied with both the technical and location specifications for asphalt concrete, in the North County (within 20 miles of the intersection of Interstate 680 and State Highway 4). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the blanket purchase order may prevent the Public Works Department from completing routine and emergency road maintenance in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Crafco, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $400,000, for Crafco crack seal material, for various types of road maintenance work, for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing Crafco crack seal material is funded 100% by Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Maintenance Division maintains over 660 miles of County roads. On February 22, 2022, the County issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) 2202-541 for Crafco Crack Sealant, a proprietary product. The Public Works Department uses Crafco Crack Sealant for County road maintenance activities Countywide. There is no requirement to spend the allocated amount during any year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the blanket purchase order may prevent the Public Works Department from completing routine and emergency road maintenance in a timely manner. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Caroline Tom, 925 313-7007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the execution of a Blanket Purchase Order with Crafco, Inc., for crack seal material. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Granite Construction Co., in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, for asphalt concrete of various types for road maintenance work, for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing asphalt concrete is funded 100% by Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2022, the County issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) 2201-553 for four asphalt concrete vendors, one each located in north, south, east, and west County to ensure close proximity to the various job sites to maintain asphalt temperature and manage transportation costs. When IFB 2201-553 closed on February 11, 2022, only one bidder had responded. On March 2, 2022, the County issued a second IFB, BID 2202-542, and when it closed, no one had bid. Having no bids to evaluate, and in an effort to establish unit costs, the Public Works Maintenance Division requested direct quotes from historical vendors who had previously complied with the specifications in the bid documents. Only one vendor responded, with high unit costs caused by the recent volatility in oil markets. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Caroline Tom, (925) 313-7007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the execution of a Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Construction Co., for asphalt concrete. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Using the informal bid process, Granite Construction Co. complied with the requirements for supplying asphalt concrete, in the East County (within 40 miles of the intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Sunset Road). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the blanket purchase order may prevent the Public Works Department from completing routine and emergency road maintenance in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with Antioch Building Materials Co., in an amount not to exceed $500,000, for asphalt concrete of various types for road maintenance work, for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing asphalt concrete is funded 100% by Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2022, the County issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) 2201-553 for four asphalt concrete vendors, one each located in north, south, east, and west County to ensure close proximity to the various job sites to maintain asphalt temperature and manage transportation costs. When IFB 2201-553 closed on February 11, 2022, only one bidder had responded. On March 2, 2022, the County issued a second IFB, BID 2202-542, and when it closed, no one had bid. Having no bids to evaluate, and in an effort to establish unit costs, the Public Works Maintenance Division requested direct quotes from historical vendors who had previously complied with the specification in the bid documents. Only one vendor responded, with high unit costs caused by the recent volatility in oil markets. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Caroline Tom, (925) 313-7007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the execution of a Blanket Purchase Order with Antioch Building Materials Co., for asphalt concrete. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Using the informal bid process, Antioch Building Materials Co. complied with the requirements for supplying asphalt concrete, in the South County (within 20 miles of the intersection of Interstate 680 and Sycamore Valley Road). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the blanket purchase order may prevent the Public Works Department from completing routine and emergency road maintenance in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute on behalf of the Public Works Director, a blanket purchase order with County Asphalt, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $500,000, for asphalt concrete of various types for road maintenance work, for the period April 26, 2022 through April 25, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing asphalt concrete is funded 100% by Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2022, the County issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) 2201-553 for four asphalt concrete vendors, one each located in north, south, east, and west County to ensure close proximity to the various job sites to maintain asphalt temperature and manage transportation costs. When IFB 2201-553 closed on February 11, 2022, only one bidder had responded. On March 2, 2022, the County issued a second IFB, BID 2202-542, and when it closed, no one had bid. Having no bids to evaluate, and in an effort to establish unit costs, the Public Works Maintenance Division requested direct quotes from historical vendors who had previously complied with the specification in the bid documents. Only one vendor responded, with high unit costs caused by the recent volatility in oil markets. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Caroline Tom, (925) 313-7007 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the execution of a Blanket Purchase Order with County Asphalt, LLC for asphalt concrete. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Using the informal bid process, County Asphalt, LLC complied with the requirements for supplying asphalt concrete, in the West County (within 20 miles of the intersection of Interstate 80 and El Portal Drive). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the blanket purchase order may prevent the Public Works Department from completing routine and emergency road maintenance in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/135 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Napa Avenue, Pinole Avenue, Suisun Avenue, Vaqueros Avenue, Third Street and Fourth Street, between Parker Avenue and Vallejo Avenue, on April 27, 2022 through October 1, 2022 from 7:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., for the purpose of installing approximately 3,620’ of 6” water main, service transfers, hydrants & connections for the East Bay Municipal Utility District Infrastructure Renewal Project, Rodeo area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: East Bay Municipal Utility District shall follow guidelines set forth by the Public Works Department to close these roads to through traffic for public safety during construction and to expedite the installation of the new water main. The location and alignment of the water mains within these roads and the existing pavement width does not allow for safely keeping the roads open to through traffic during working hours. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Applicant will be unable to close the road for planned activities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, Chris Lau - Maintenance, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve & Authorize to fully close a portion of several roads, on April 27, 2022 through October 1, 2022, Rodeo area. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2022/135 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2022/135 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/135 IN THE MATTER OF: Approving and Authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Napa Avenue, Pinole Avenue, Suisun Avenue, Vaqueros Avenue, Third Street and Fourth Street, between Parker Avenue and Vallejo Avenue, on April 27, 2022 through October 1, 2022 from 7:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., for the purpose of infrastructure renewal project, Rodeo area. (District V) RC22-4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that permission is granted to East Bay Municipal Utility District to fully close Napa Avenue, Pinole Avenue, Suisun Avenue, Vaqueros Avenue, Third Street and Fourth Street, between Parker Avenue and Vallejo Avenue, except for emergency traffic, on April 27, 2022 through October 1, 2022 for the period of 7 :00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., subject to the following conditions: 1. Traffic will be detoured via traffic control plan reviewed by Public Works. 2. All signing to be in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3. East Bay Municipal Utility District shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County. 4. Provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for Comprehensive General Public Liability which names the County as an additional insured prior to permit issuance. 5. Obtain approval for the closure from the Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol and the Fire District. Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, Chris Lau - Maintenance, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Michael McCarthy, for a south-facing hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective April 25, 2022, in the monthly amount of $359.00, Pacheco area (District IV). FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $4,308.00 annually. BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2006, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the form of the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar Rental Agreement for use with renting the County's t-hangars, shade hangars, medium hangars, and executive hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. On February 23, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Rental Agreement for use with the large East Ramp Hangars. On January 16, 2009, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Director of Airports Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport Hangar tenant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Rental Agreement and the Large Hangar Rental Agreement (combined "Hangar Rental Agreements"). The Hangar Rental Agreements are the current forms in use for rental of all the County hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. ATTACHMENTS Hangar Rental Agmt pg 4-5 Michael McCarthy RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the County and the KPA Group dated March 12, 2019, for the Buchanan Field terminal project, to increase the payment limit by $10,200, from $1,054,209 to a new limit of $1,064,409. FISCAL IMPACT: The increase in the contract amount will be paid by the Airport Enterprise Fund. BACKGROUND: During the construction of the Buchanan Field Airport Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Terminal Building, the KPA Group is performing architectural and construction administration support services. Those services include preparing architect’s supplemental instructions and providing quality control. To provide the required quality control, the KPA Group must perform additional geotechnical services. The cost of these additional services necessitates an increase in the contract limit by $10,200, from $1,054,209 to a new limit of $1,064,409. No other changes are being made to the original contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the increase in the payment limit is not approved, the KPA Group will not be able to perform the necessary additional geotechnical services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Director of Airports Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE KPA GROUP RECOMMENDATION(S): Acting as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Flood Control District, the Fifth Amendment to the Marsh Creek Recreational Trail License Agreement with East Bay Regional Park District, effective April 26, 2022, to reflect changes in the trail alignment and permitted uses and allow installation of interpretive signs, Brentwood area. (Project No.: 7562-WO8490). FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On November 3, 1992, this Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District"), approved a license agreement granting East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) a license in District-owned property for EBRPD’s Marsh Creek Recreational Trail (“Trail”). The license agreement authorizes the construction and maintenance of the Trail for pedestrians, equestrians and bicycles along Marsh Creek, extending from its confluence with Dry Creek, to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The license agreement has been amended four times to add new obligations and revise the trail alignment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jewel Lopez, 925. 957-2485 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Gus Amirzehni, Flood Control C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Marsh Creek Recreational Trail License Agreement, Brentwood area. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In 2021, the District began its Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (“Project”). As part of the Project, a portion of the Trail operated by EBRPD was removed from District-owned property. A parallel trail segment now exists on property owned by the City of Brentwood. The Fifth Amendment to the License Agreement will remove the portion of the Trail no longer located on District-owned property, include new trail segments, and authorize EBRPD to install interpretive signs. The remaining obligations under the License Agreement, as previously amended, remain unchanged. District staff recommend approving the Fifth Amendment to the License Agreement to ensure the License Agreement accurately describes the Trail located on District property, and allows uses benefitting members of the public who will use the Trail. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EBRPD will not have the necessary rights over the new Trail segments and interpretive signs located on District property, and the License Agreement’s description of the Trail will be incorrect. ATTACHMENTS Amendment to License Agreement RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement (Contract) Amendment with Advanced Hydro Engineering, Inc., to amend the insurance requirements and to extend the term from June 3, 2022 through June 3, 2023, for on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling, with no change to the payment limit of $100,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action, as it is only to extend the term of the Contract. This project, including the Contract, will be funded by 100% FC District Funds (Project No.: Various). BACKGROUND: The FC District provides regional flood protection, technical information, hydrology data and education to cities and residents, and environmental stewardship for over 70 miles of streams and several detention basins as part of the County’s flood protection system. The FC District is extending the term of its on-call support for hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling for an additional year through June 3, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Tim Jensen, (925) 313-2390 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Allison Knapp, Deputy Chief Engineer, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Michael Taylor, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 10 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:On-Call Contract Amendment with Advanced Hydro Engineering, Inc., Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This amendment contains insurance language that changes the insurance provisions in the General Conditions, which has been reviewed and approved by the County’s Risk Management Division. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the FC District will not be able to obtain on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with David L. Gates & Associates, Inc., to extend the term from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022, for continued on-call landscaping architect services, with no change to the payment limit of $250,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is involved in the development and review of landscape improvement projects throughout the County. As part of this regular work, consultant services are required to augment Public Works staff and provide special technical assistance on an on-call basis. These services include the managing, inspecting and overseeing of developer and County landscape projects, as well as performing the duties of a landscape designer, landscape architect, landscape plan checker, landscape construction field inspector, grounds and facilities inspector and/or playground safety inspector. The consultant will be involved in projects primarily for areas within the Countywide Landscaping District (LL-2) and County Service Areas (CSAs). Extending this contract will allow Public Works to complete the contracting solicitation and award process for landscape architects. This amendment will allow current and planned work to continue uninterrupted. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rochelle Johnson (925) 313-2299 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Carl Roner- Special Districts, Rochelle Johnson - Special Districts, Carmen Piggee- Special Districts C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with David L. Gates & Associates, Inc., Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors to amend the contract, there may be delays in the implementation of landscape improvements within various special districts in the County, and may also delay approval of right of way landscape improvements in private developments. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement (Contract) Amendment with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., to amend the insurance requirements and to extend the term from May 14, 2022 through May 14, 2023, for on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling, with no change to the payment limit of $200,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action, as it is only to amend the insurance requirements and to extend the term of the Contract. This project, including the Contract, will be funded by 100% FC District Funds (Project No.: Various). BACKGROUND: The FC District provides regional flood protection, technical information, hydrology data and education to cities and residents, and environmental stewardship for over 70 miles of streams and several detention basins as part of the County’s flood protection system. The FC District is extending the term of its on-call support for hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling for an additional year through May 14, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Tim Jensen, (925) 313-2390 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Allison Knapp, Deputy Chief Engineer, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Michael Taylor, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 12 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:On-Call Contract Amendment with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This amendment contains insurance language that changes the insurance provisions in the General Conditions, which has been reviewed and approved by the County’s Risk Management Division. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the FC District will not be able to obtain on-call professional engineering services relating to hydrology/hydraulic studies and modeling. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to extend the term date from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022 and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000, for continued on-call landscape architect services, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Special Revenue Funds. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is involved in the development and review of landscape improvement projects throughout the County. As part of this regular work, consultant services are required to augment Public Works staff and provide special technical assistance on an on-call basis. These services include the managing, inspecting and overseeing of developer and County landscape projects, as well as performing the duties of a landscape designer, landscape architect, landscape plan checker, landscape construction field inspector, grounds and facilities inspector and/or playground safety inspector. The consultant will be involved in projects primarily for areas within the Countywide Landscaping District (LL-2) and County Service Areas (CSAs). Extending this contract will allow Public Works to complete the contracting solicitation and award process for landscape architects. This amendment will allow current and planned work to continue uninterrupted. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rochelle Johnson (925) 313-2299 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Carl Roner- Special Districts, Rochelle Johnson - Special Districts, Carmen Piggee- Special Districts C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors to amend the contract, there may be delays in the implementation of landscape improvements within various special districts in the County, and may also delay approval of right of way landscape improvements in private developments. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with A.S. Dutchover (dba Dutchover & Associates) to extend the term from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022 and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new limit of $350,000, for continued on-call landscape architect services, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Special Revenue Funds. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is involved in the development and review of landscape improvement projects throughout the County. As part of this regular work, consultant services are required to augment Public Works staff and provide special technical assistance on an on-call basis. These services include the managing, inspecting and overseeing of developer and County landscape projects, as well as performing the duties of a landscape designer, landscape architect, landscape plan checker, landscape construction field inspector, grounds and facilities inspector and/or playground safety inspector. The consultant will be involved in projects primarily for areas within the Countywide Landscaping District (LL-2) and County Service Areas (CSAs). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rochelle Johnson (925) 313-2299 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Carl Roner- Special Districts, Rochelle Johnson - Special Districts, Carmen Piggee- Special Districts C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with A.S. Dutchover, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Extending this contract will allow Public Works to complete the contracting solicitation and award process for landscape architects. This amendment will allow current and planned work to continue uninterrupted. On March 27, 2018, the Board approved a Consulting Services Agreement (contract) with A. S. Dutchover & Associates (dba Dutchover & Associates) in the amount of $250,000 for the period April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2021 for on-call landscape architecture services. On May 23, 2021, the Board approved an amendment with Dutchover & Associates to extend the term from March 31, 2021 through March 31, 2022, with no change to the contract payment limit. The contract being amended incorrectly listed a termination date of March 31, 2023. The purpose of this Board order is to: Clarify that the incorrect termination date was listed on the contract amendment; extend the parties intended contract termination date from March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022; and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $350,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors to amend the contract, there may be delays in the implementation of landscape improvements within various special districts in the County, and a delay in approval of right of way landscape improvements in private developments. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute a Contract Amendment with Jennifer Krebs (dba Jennifer Krebs Environmental Planning), to extend the term from May 7, 2022 through May 7, 2023, for on-call program support and Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Associations Administration (BAFPAAA), with no change to the payment limit of $300,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action, as it is only to extend the term of the Contract. These services, including the Contract, will be funded by 100% FC District Funds (Project No.: Various). BACKGROUND: The FC District provides regional flood protection, technical information, hydrology data and education to cities and residents, and environmental stewardship for over 70 miles of streams and several detention basins as part of the County’s flood protection system. The FC District is extending the term of its on-call program support and BAFPAAA for an additional year through May 7, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Tim Jensen, (925) 313-2390 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Allison Knapp, Deputy Chief Engineer, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Michael Taylor, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 15 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:On-Call Contract Amendment with Jennifer Krebs (dba Jennifer Krebs Environmental Planning), Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the FC District will not be able to obtain on-call services for program support and BAFPAAA. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Bruce Moorad and Judith Moorad, for a north-facing shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective April 27, 2022, in the monthly amount of $169.00, Pacheco area (District IV). FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $2,028.00 annually. BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2006, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the form of the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar Rental Agreement for use with renting the County's t-hangars, shade hangars, medium hangars, and executive hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. On February 23, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Rental Agreement for use with the large East Ramp Hangars. On January 16, 2009, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Director of Airports Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport hangar tenant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Rental Agreement and the Large Hangar Rental Agreement (combined "Hangar Rental Agreements"). The Hangar Rental Agreements are the current forms in use for rental of all the County hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. ATTACHMENTS Hangar Rental Agmt pg 4-5_M&J Moorad RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Manny Amador, Mary Barker, Brenda Gardner, Rickey Richard McNeal, Mary Nunn, Terri Sommer, Andrea L. Thayer and Karen Triest. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Manny Amador: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $800. Mary Barker: Personal injury claim for trip and fall in the amount of $1,000,000. Brenda Gardner: Property claim for lost dentures in the amount of $3,600. Rickey Richard McNeal: Excessive force and wrongful arrest claim in the amount of $100,000. Mary Nunn: Personal injury claim for trip and fall in the amount of $15,000. Terri Sommer: Personal injury claim for dog attack in the amount of $150,000. Andrea L. Thayer: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $1,225.30 Karen Triest: Claim for excessive APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Risk Management I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) storage fees resulting from alleged negligence in the amount of $4,375. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not acting on the claims could extend the claimants’ time limits to file actions against the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. District I and V has nothing to report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.655.2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2022 ATTACHMENTS District II March 2022 Report District III March 2022 Report District IV March 2022 Report Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report March 2022 Date Meeting Location 1 Board of Supervisors Zoom meeting 2 San Ramon State of the City San Ramon 2 TVTC Zoom meeting 2 MHC Zoom Meeting 3 MP&L Zoom Meeting 8 Board of Supervisors Zoom Meeting 9 CCCERA Zoom Meeting 9 LAFCO Zoom meeting 9 Juv Justice Coord. Council Zoom meeting 10 RE Marketing Assoc Danville 11 Joint Conf Committee Zoom meeting 14 TWIC Zoom meeting 14 Internal Ops Zoom meeting 15 TRAFFIX Zoom meeting 16 Danville Chamber State of Town Danville 17 CCCTA Zoom meeting 17 IPM Meeting Zoom meeting 17 ABAG Zoom meeting 18 SIRS Rossmoor Rossmoor 21 Alamo Liaison Zoom meeting 21 Lamorinda Joint Council Zoom meeting 22 Board of Supervisors Zoom meeting 23 CCCERA Zoom meeting 24 EBMUD Open house Orinda 24 CCCSWA Zoom meeting 25 Lafayette COY Lafayette 28 Family & Human Services Zoom meeting 28 Public Protection Committee Zoom meeting 29 Board of Supervisors Martinez 30 Tassajara Valley open house Diablo Vista School 31 Franchise Adhoc Meeting Zoom meeting 31 TVTC Special meeting Zoom meeting 31 Diablo Town Hall Alamo Date Meeting Name Location 1-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 2-Mar Contra Costa Fire Protection District Academy Graduation Walnut Creek 3-Mar Family Justice Board Meeting Web Meeting 7-Mar Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Joint Conference Committee Web Meeting 8-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 8-Mar Contra Costa Fire Protection District Meeting Web Meeting 8-Mar Contra Costa Housing Authority Web Meeting 9-Mar Airport Committee Meeting Web Meeting 9-Mar LAFCO Meeting Web Meeting 9-Mar Meeting with County Administrator, Monica Nino Web Meeting 10-Mar San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Web Meeting 10-Mar Meeting with County Staff Web Meeting 10-Mar Transplan Committee Meeting Web Meeting 11-Mar Delta Counties Coalition Web Meeting 11-Mar Contra Costa Health Joint Conference Committee Meeting Web Meeting 14-Mar Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee MeetingWeb Meeting 14-Mar Internal Operations Committee Web Meeting 14-Mar Legislation Committee Meeting Web Meeting 14-Mar Meeting with County Administrator, Monica Nino Web Meeting 16-Mar Meeting with First5 Executive Director, Ruth Fernandez Web Meeting 16-Mar Meeting with East Contra Costa STRONG Web Meeting 16-Mar Brentwood PD Virtual Town Hall on Homelessness Web Meeting 17-Mar Delta Protection Commission Meeting Web Meeting 21-Mar Martinez Office Martinez 22-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 23-Mar Delta Conservancy Meeting Web Meeting 23-Mar Tri-Delta Transit Meeting Web Meeting 24-Mar Constituent Meeting Web Meeting 24-Mar Meeting with County Administrator, Monica Nino Web Meeting 24-Mar Cal State East Bay 2022 Transformative Leadership Advisory Meeting Web Meeting 25-Mar Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Web Meeting Supervisor Diane Burgis - March 2022 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). 28-Mar Family and Human Services Committee Meeting Web Meeting 28-Mar Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery DistrictWeb Meeting 29-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 30-Mar Meeting with City of Oakley and County Staff Web Meeting 31-Mar Non-Profit Roundtable Web Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Purpose Meeting Community Outreach Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Run-Through Mock Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Supervisor Diane Burgis - March 2022 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff March 2022 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 03/24/22 Board of Supervisors in-person run thru Martinez Prep for first in-person meeting 03/29/22 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decide on agenda items RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/144 proclaiming April 24-30, 2022 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in promotion of victims' rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf. BACKGROUND: In April 1981, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the first national "Crime Victims Week." National Crime Victims' Rights Week offers an opportunity to renew our commitment to crime victims by strengthening our partnerships and creating new ones, upholding the constitutional mandates of Marsy's Law and mobilizing organizations and their leaders to continue the commitment to crime victims and the safety of our community. This year’s theme is “Enforcing victims’ rights. Expanding access to services. Ensuring equity and inclusion for all.” Victims’ Rights Week recognizes prosecutors, support staff, law enforcement, crime victims and community members who have overcome so much to make our community safer. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jason Chan, (925) 957-2234 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diana Becton, District Attorney Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:National Crime Victims' Rights Week April 24-30, 2022 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/144 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/144 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/144 National Crime Victims' Rights Week 2022 Whereas, in 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime envisioned a national commitment to a more equitable and supportive response to victims; and Whereas, this commemorative week celebrates the energy. perseverance and commitment that launched the victims' rights movement, inspired its progress, and continues to advance the cause of justice for crime victims; and Whereas, crime can leave a lasting impact on any person, regardless of age, national origin, race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration, or economic status; and Whereas, incorporating communities' exiting experts and trusted sources of support into efforts to fully serve survivors will develop a criminal justice system response that is truly accessible and appropriate for all victims of crime; and Whereas, with the unwavering support of their communities and victim service providers behind them, survivors will be empowered to face their grief, loss fear, anger and hope without fear of judgment, and will feel understood, heard, and respected; and Whereas, serving victims and rebuilding their trust restores hope to victims and survivors, as well as supports thriving communities; and Whereas, engaging a broader array of healthcare providers, community leaders, faith organizations, educators and businesses can provide new links between victims and services that improve their safety, healing, and access to justice; and Whereas, honoring the rights of victims, including the rights to be heard and to be treated with fairness, dignity, respect, and working to meet their needs rebuilds their trust in the criminal justice and social service systems in the aftermath of crime; and Whereas, Contra Costa County is hereby dedicated to strengthening victims and survivors in the aftermath of crime, building resilience in our communities and our victim responders, and working for a better future of all victims and survivors. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Board of Supervisors proclaims the week of April 24-30, 2022, as Crime Victims' Rights Week, reaffirming the County's commitment to creating a victim service and criminal justice system response that assists all victims of crime during Crime Victims' Rights Week and throughout the year; and expressing our sincere gratitude and appreciation for those community members, victim service providers, and criminal justice professionals who are committed to improving our response to all victims of crime so that they may find relevant assistance, support, justice, and peace. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 9259578860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Karen Reed as the 2022 Moraga Citizen of the Year AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/140 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/140 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/140 recognizing Karen Reed as the 2022 Moraga Citizen of the Year. Karen Reed has successfully served the Town of Moraga in a number of leadership roles during the past two decades, her participation and involvement in so many areas have provided value to the Town of Moraga and its residents; and Whereas, Karen has been an active member of the Moraga Park Foundation for over 20 years, serving as President for three years and as Secretary, Treasurer or Vice President for 9+ additional years; and Whereas, Karen’s public service includes being the driving force behind the annual Moraga Park Foundation’s Pear Festival, she is a long-time supporter of the Summer Concerts, volunteering in a variety of capacities contributing time and energy to ensure the concerts continue to be one of the highlights of activities offered in Moraga; and Whereas, Karen is a long-time member of Kiwanis Club of Moraga Valley, she has served as President, member of the Board and chaired various committees overseeing the activities that benefit Moraga and generating money to contribute to charitable causes; and Whereas, Karen served on the Moraga Park and Recreation commission for six years and was Chair for two years, her dedication to improving Moraga’s parks and recreation programs is a long-standing priority for her; and Whereas, Karen Reed has provided leadership in so many different capacities, sharing her abilities, knowledge, compassion, and integrity. She knows how to work effectively with others to get the desired results. that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor Karen Reed for her long-standing dedication to the town of Moraga and its residents. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Tish Gallegos 8-4808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marla Stuart, Employment and Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Proclaim April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Month AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/145 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/145 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/145 Proclaiming April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Month WHEREAS, as a community, we have a responsibility to nurture and protect our children and help ensure they become healthy and productive adults; and WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect affect children of all ages, races, and income, and is 100 percent preventable; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County, the Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) and Child Protective Services (CPS), a program of Children & Family Services within the Employment and Human Services Department, collaborate to continue protecting children through preventive services, response, intervention, and investigation; and WHEREAS, despite outreach and community efforts, the rising number of reported child abuse cases remains a great concern and highlights the need for individuals and communities to work together to increase protection and improve services for children who are abused or neglected; and WHEREAS, more than 4 million cases of child abuse per year are reported across the country, and two of the major risk factors leading to child abuse and neglect are family isolation and stress; and WHEREAS, experiencing physical abuse or witnessing violence early in life can become a cycle, passed down through generations, and children exposed to violence may consider it acceptable. Therefore, the cycle of violence continues and can lead to other violent or dangerous actions; and WHEREAS, children who have experienced abuse are nine times more likely to become involved in criminal activities; and WHEREAS, we cannot put a dollar value on the life of a child; however, we can work together to help end the tragedy of child abuse by supporting children and families. The benefits of implementing prevention programs greatly outweigh the substantial economic costs of maltreatment; and WHEREAS, in 2020, the cumulative financial impact to Contra Costa County for the 720 verified survivors of maltreatment is $338,000,000. WHEREAS, these costs accrue over the course of survivors’ lives, yet the community will continue to incur the same cost each year until we are able to reduce and ultimately end child abuse; and WHEREAS, most experts believe the number of incidents of abuse are far greater than what is reported, and early intervention is critical for preventing abuse and can positively impact at-risk families, protecting children; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County there are numerous committed agencies, parents, relatives, community volunteers, public policymakers, and professionals who collaborate to eliminate child abuse and give our children hope, security, and safety; and WHEREAS, CAPC is a child abuse prevention service provider to Contra Costa County and urges community members to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement, child welfare agencies or other community hotlines; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors joins in proclaiming April 2022 to be Child Abuse Prevention Month; recognizes the efforts of the Child Abuse Prevention Council and Children & Family Services of the Employment and Human Services Department; and acknowledges both agencies for their dedication to preventing child abuse in Contra Costa County. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Fatima Matal Sol, 925-335-3307 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing April 2022 as Alcohol Awareness Month AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/150 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/150 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2022/150 April is Alcohol Awareness Month WHEREAS, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in 2010: and WHEREAS Alcohol Awareness Month provides an opportunity to increase outreach and education regarding the dangers of alcoholism and issues related to alcohol; and WHEREAS, to protect the health and safety of California residents a shelter in place order was issued at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals and families experienced isolation and increased stress, along with fear and anxiety. Concurrently, many States including California relaxed alcohol related laws to provide economic support to bars and restaurants leading to a substantial increase of alcohol sales purchased off premises, consequently increasing in the use of alcohol and other drugs; and WHEREAS the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) reported that by the end of 2020, 25.9 million past year users of alcohol and 10.9 million past year users of drugs other than alcohol perceived that they were using these substances “a little more or much more” than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic began; and, WHEREAS people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States and more than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinking; and WHEREAS research indicates that alcohol use during the teenage years could interfere with normal adolescent brain development and increase the risk of developing Alcohol Use Disorder; and WHEREAS youth who drink alcohol are more likely to experience changes in brain development that may have life-long effects including, physical and sexual violence, school and social problems, increased risk of suicide and homicide, and alcohol related vehicle crashes; and WHEREAS research shows that parents are the number one reason why youth choose not to drink, and a supportive family environment is associated with lower rates of alcohol use among adolescents; and WHEREAS statewide prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts surrounding alcohol and substance use can help individuals, families, and children coping with alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors declares April 2022 as Alcohol Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors call upon all citizens, parents, youth, governmental agencies, public and private institutions, businesses and workplaces, hospitals, and schools in the County to support efforts that will provide Hope, Help, and Healing for those families in our communities who are facing challenges with alcohol use and abuse. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, at a regular meeting of the Board held on May 3, 2022. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2022-16, to increase fines and administrative penalty amounts for violations of the County Ordinance Code. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The costs of preparing this Ordinance were covered by the Land Development Fund. BACKGROUND: The County Ordinance Code includes several enforcement mechanisms to deter violations of the Code, including fines and administrative penalties. Fines and administrative penalty amounts that may be imposed for a violation of a County ordinance are limited by State law. Recent State legislation increased the authorized monetary penalties for violations of County ordinances, specifically for violations of building and safety codes, short-term rental ordinances, and event permit requirements. The proposed ordinance would update the County Ordinance Code to conform with the statutory limitations for fines and administrative penalties. The County Ordinance Code includes the County’s Temporary Events Ordinance (Chapter 82-44, regulating events conducted on private property) and Short-term Rental Ordinance (Chapter 88-32, authorizing the operation of a short-term rental with a permit and establishing operational standards). County staff's experience is that most operators and property owners adhere to the permitting requirements and operational standards of these ordinances. Additionally, the County's code enforcement approach for zoning and building code violations emphasizes achieving compliance through notification and education. However, County staff has also encountered clearly intentional violations of these ordinances that pose significant community safety risks. Examples include the increasing occurrence of large, unpermitted pop-up events in rural areas that pose significant noise and safety impacts, and unpermitted short-term rentals used for parties. Operators that are knowingly violating these ordinances are often commercially benefiting from the violations. Thus, monetary penalties must be significant to deter violations or risk being viewed as the cost of doing business for these operators. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Francisco Avila, 925-655-2866 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Increasing Fines for Violations of the Building and Safety Codes and Temporary Events and Short-Term Rental Ordinances BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The proposed ordinance would also increase the fines and administrative penalty amounts for violations of building and safety codes, including violations of Title 7 (Building Code) and Title 8 (Zoning) where the violation is associated with an unlawful building or structure. The County has generally set fine amounts for violations of these types to be the maximum allowed under State law, due to the safety risk these violations pose. The proposed increases would conform with the updated statutory limitations for fines and administrative penalties imposed for violations of building and safety codes. The proposed fine and administrative penalty amounts are listed below: Revised Fine and Administrative Penalty Amounts General Code Violations $100 for a first violation (unchanged)1. $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year (unchanged)2. $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year (unchanged)3. Violations of Building and Safety Codes $130 for a first violation ($100 currently)1. $700 for a second violation within one year ($500 currently)2. $1,300 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year ($1,000 currently)3. $2,500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years for certain violations related to commercial properties (NEW) 4. Violation of Event Permit Requirements (NEW) $150 for a first violation of an event permit requirement1. $700 for a second occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation 2. $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation 3. Violation of the County’s Short-term Rental Ordinance (Ordinance Code Chapter 88-32) (NEW) $100 for a first violation for failure to register or pay a business license fee1. $1,500 for a first violation of Chapter 88-32, except for failure to register or pay a business license fee2. $3,000 for a second violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation3. $5,000 for each additional violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation4. In accordance with State law, the proposed ordinance also provides a responsible party the opportunity to file a request for a hardship waiver for certain increased penalties imposed for multiple violations. The responsible party must show that he or she has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on their part. The request for a hardship waiver must be accompanied by an affidavit and support documents or materials demonstrating that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the party. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not adopt Ordinance No. 2022-16, County Code Enforcement staff will have less effective tools to require Code compliance by property owners and operators that do not conform to regulations aimed at protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of county residents. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2022-16 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2022-16 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 INCREASING FINES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends the County’s Ordinance Code to increase fine amounts for violations of the County Ordinance Code, including violations of the County’s Temporary Events and Short-term Rental Ordinances and violations of building and safety codes. SECTION II. Section 14-8.004 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 14-8.004 Violation—Punishment. (a) Infractions. Except as otherwise provided by statute or this code, every infraction violation of this code is punishable by a fine. (1) Fine amounts for infraction violations of this code are as follows, except as otherwise provided in subsections (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section: (A) $100 for a first violation. (B) $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (C) $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (2) Fine amounts for infraction violations of building and safety codes are as follows: (A) $130 for a first violation. (B) $700 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (C) $1,300 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (D) $2,500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years of the first violation if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 2 (3) Fine amounts for infraction violations of event permit requirements are as follows: (A) $150 for a first violation of an event permit requirement. (B) $700 for a second occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation. (C) $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation. “Violation of an event permit requirement” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (e) of Government Code section 25132. (4) Fine amounts for infraction violations of the County’s Short-term Rental Ordinance (Chapter 88-32), are as follows: (A) $100 for a first violation for failure to register or pay a business license fee. (B) $1,500 for a first violation of Chapter 88-32, except as otherwise provided in subsection (a)(4)(A) of this section. (C) $3,000 for a second violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation. (D) $5,000 for each additional violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation. (5) If a fine is levied pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C) (a)(2)(D), or (a)(4) of this section, a responsible party may file a request for a hardship waiver. The responsible party must show that he or she has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the party. The request for a hardship waiver must be accompanied by an affidavit and support documents or materials demonstrating that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the party. (b) Misdemeanors. Except as otherwise provided by state law or this code, every misdemeanor violation of this code is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both. (Ords. 2022-16 § 2, 2007-18 § 11, 84-18, 76-51 § 1, 70-36, 1457: prior code § 1200 (part): see Govt. C. § 25132 (b), Vehicle Code § 42001(a), and Penal Code § 19.) ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 3 SECTION III. Section 14-12.006 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 14-12.006 Administrative Fines. (a) The director is authorized to determine whether a violation of this code exists with respect to any property. (b) If the violation is a continuing violation pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical or other similar structural or zoning issues, the director may serve a notice of violation on the owner as specified in section 14-12.018. The notice of violation will include all of the following information: (1) The date of the violation. (2) The address or other description of the location where the violation occurred. (3) The code section(s) violated and a description of the violation. (4) A description of how the violation can be corrected. (5) A specified time period of at least 10 calendar days, beginning on the service date, within which the violation must be corrected. (6) An advisement that the owner may be subject to an administrative fine under this chapter if the violation is not corrected by the effective date, and the amount of that fine. (c) The director may impose an administrative fine on the owner if any of the following occur: (1) The violation is not a continuing violation pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical or other similar structural or zoning issues. (2) The continuing violation has not been corrected as specified in the notice of violation. (3) The continuing violation was corrected as specified in the notice of violation but a violation of the same code section continues, exists or occurs within one year of the effective date. (d) Fine Amounts. (1) Fine amounts for infraction violations of this code are as follows, except as otherwise provided in subsections (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4) of this section: (A) $100 for a first violation. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 4 (B) $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (C) $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (2) Fine amounts for infraction violations of building and safety codes are as follows: (A) $130 for a first violation. (B) $700 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (C) $1,300 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (D) $2,500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years of the first violation if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property. (3) Fine amounts for infraction violations of event permit requirements are as follows: (A) $150 for the first violation of an event permit requirement. (B) $700 for a second occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation. (C) $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation of an event permit requirement by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation. “Violation of an event permit requirement” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (e) of Government Code section 25132. (4) Fine amounts for infraction violations of the County’s Short-term Rental Ordinance (Chapter 88-32), are as follows: (A) $100 for a first violation of Chapter 88-32 for failure to register or pay a business license fee. (B) $1,500 for a first violation of Chapter 88-32, except as otherwise provided in subsection (a)(4)(A) of this section. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 5 (C) $3,000 for a second violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation. (D) $5,000 for each additional violation of Chapter 88-32 within one year of the first violation. (e) An administrative fine will be assessed by means of a notice of fine. The owner will be served with the notice of fine as specified in section 14-12.018. The notice of fine will include all of the following information: (1) The date of the violation. (2) The address or other description of the location where the violation occurred. (3) The code section(s) violated and a description of the violation. (4) The amount of the fine. (5) An advisement of the right to request a hearing before the hearing examiner contesting the imposition of the fine. (f) The director may require immediate abatement of a violation pursuant to section 14-6.406 of this code if the violation creates an immediate danger to the health and safety of persons or property. (Ords. 2022-16 § 3, 2007-18 § 3, 2002-47 § 3, 2000-21 § 2.) SECTION IV. Section 14-12.008 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 14-12.008 Appeals. (a) Any person upon whom an administrative fine is imposed by the director may appeal the fine pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. The appellant must file a written appeal with the director within 15 calendar days after the service date of the notice of fine. The written appeal must contain: (1) A brief statement setting forth the interest the appealing party has in the matter relating to the imposition of the penalty; and (2) A brief statement of the material facts that the appellant claims supports his or her contention that no administrative penalty should be imposed or that an administrative penalty of a different amount is warranted. (3) If a fine is levied pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B), (d)(1)(C), (d)(2)(B), (d)(2)(C) (d)(2)(D), or (d)(4) of Section 14-12.006, an appellant may file a request for a hardship waiver. The appellant must show that he or she has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 6 would impose an undue financial burden on the party. The request for a hardship waiver must be accompanied by an affidavit and support documents or materials demonstrating that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the party. (b) Notice of the appeal hearing will be served as specified in section 14-12.018 and will set the appeal hearing no sooner than 20 days and no later than 45 days following the service date of the notice of appeal hearing. (c) An appeal of an administrative fine imposed for violations of this code will be heard by the following hearing examiners: (1) Director of Environmental Health for violations of Division 413 and Chapters 414-4, 414-6, 416-14, 418-2, 418-6, 418-12, 420-2, 420-6, and 450-6. (2) Public Health Director for violations of Division 445. (3) Director of Building Inspection for violations of Title 7. (4) Zoning Administrator for violations of Title 8. (d) At the hearing, the appellant will be given the opportunity to testify and to present evidence. (e) After considering the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, or after the appellant has failed to appear at the hearing, the hearing examiner will issue a written decision to uphold, modify, or cancel the administrative fine and will list in the decision the reason or reasons for that decision. If applicable, the hearing examiner will make a determination on the hardship waiver. The decision will be served as specified in section 14-12.018. (Ords. 2022-16 § 4, 2006-66 § 10, 2003-01 § 8, 2002-47 § 3, 2000-21 § 2.) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ORDINANCE NO. 2022-16 7 SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________ [SEAL] Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Marilyn Cachola Lucey, resident of Alamo, to the District II Seat of the Contra Costa Commission for Women for a term with an expiration date of February 28, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND: The Commission for Women was established to identify major economic, educational, and social concerns of women in Contra Costa County, and to reach and inform all women on a variety of issues. The Commission consists of 16 members: one member from each Supervisorial District, 10 At Large members, and 1 Alternate At Large member. The IO Committee reviews nominations to the 10 At Large and Alternate Seats. Terms for all Commission seats are four years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CC Commission for Women and Girls, Appointee C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE CONTRA COSTA COMMISSION FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Swamini Bajpai to the City of San Ramon Local Committee seat on the Advisory Council on Aging for a term ending September 30, 2023 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Appoint Swamini Bajpai as the City of San Ramon Local Committee representative on the Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) for a term ending September 30, 2023, the seat is currently vacant. Ms. Bajpai is a resident of San Ramon and was approved as the San Ramon representative to the ACOA by the San Ramon City Council on March 29, 2022. The ACOA provides for countywide planning, cooperation, and coordination for individuals and groups interested in improving and developing services and opportunities for residents of the County. The ACOA provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons as a channel of communication and information on aging. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The ACOA may not be able to conduct routine business. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marla Stuart, Employment and Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Advisory Council on Aging Appointment RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE vacant the Trustee 1 Seat on the Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery District previously held by Deb Spinola due to resignation, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post vacancy, as recommended by the Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery District. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The District office was notified of the resignation of Deb Spinola. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alicia Nuchols, 925-655-2330 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:DECLARE VACANCY ON THE BYRON-BRENTWOOD-KNIGHTSEN UNION CEMETEREY DISTRICT AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.26 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, ist Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board, Commission, or Committee Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery District Board of Trustees Seat: Trustee 1 Appointments will be made after May 10, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 26, 2022. cc : Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\M inutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~=dministrator By: a lA.lU,f"\ ~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Cynthia Chavez to the District 3 Seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Burgis. Cynthia Chavez Antioch, CA 94531 FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The mission of the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding treatment and prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse problems. They report their findings and recommendations to the Contra Costa Health Services Department, the Board of Supervisors and the communities they serve. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board works in collaboration with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Division of Contra Costa Health Services. They provide input and recommendation as they pertain to alcohol and drug APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alicia Nuchols, 925-655-2330 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS ADVISORY BOARD BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) prevention, intervention, and treatment services. The term for this seat expires June 30, 2025. Applications were accepted and the recommendation to appoint the above individual was determined CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to the District IV seat on the Aviation Advisory Committee, with a term ending February 28, 2023: Gareth Ashley Concord, CA FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: To provide advice and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the aviation issues related to the economic viability and security of airports in Contra Costa County. The Committee may initiate discussions, observations, or investigations, in order to make its recommendations to the Board. The Committee may hear comments on airport and aviation matters from the public or other agencies for consideration and possible recommendations to the Board of Supervisors or their designees. The Aviation Advisory Committee APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Chow, (925) 655-2350 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Gareth Ashley to the District IV seat of the Aviation Advisory Committee BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) shall cooperate with local, state, and national aviation interests for the safe and orderly operation of airports. The Aviation Advisory Committee shall advance and promote the interests of aviation and protect the general welfare of the people living and working near the airport and the County in general. In conjunction with all of the above, the Aviation Advisory Committee shall provide a forum for the Director of Airports regarding policy matters at and around the airports. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would remain vacant CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: n/a RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Darsh Bhutra, a Blackhawk resident, to the Appointee 5 Seat on the County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee for a term with an expiration date of December 31, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND: The County Services Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee includes seven (7) appointees representing the Blackhawk county service area who advises the Board of Supervisors on the needs of the Blackhawk community for extended police services which shall include, but not be limited to, enforcement of the State Vehicle Code, crime prevention, litter control, and other issues. Supervisor Andersen advertised the seat, received one application, met with the applicant and feels Mr. Bhutra will make a positive addition to the Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CSA P-2A CAC, , Appointee C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-2A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to the District IV Seat 2 on the Mental Health Commission for a term ending June 30, 2024 as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: Tavane Payne - Concord, CA FISCAL IMPACT: none BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission was established by order of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on June 22, 1993, pursuant to the Welfare & Institution Code 5604, also known as the Bronzan-McCorquodale Act, Stats. 1992, c. 1374 (A.B. 14). The primary purpose APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Colleen Awad, 925-655-2350 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Tavane Payne to the District IV Consumer Seat on the Mental Health Commission BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of the Commission is to serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors from each of the five districts for a term of three years. Each district has a consumer of mental health services, family member and an at-large representative on the Commission, for a total of 15 members plus a representative from the Board of Supervisors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain vacant RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT Dennis Reigle to the Public Representative 1 seat, and APPOINT Larry Fernandes to the Public Representative 2 seat and Kenneth Miller to the Board of Supervisors Alternate Representative seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee, all to four-year terms beginning May 1, 2022 and ending April 30, 2026. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Members of the Treasury Oversight Committee receive no compensation for their service. BACKGROUND: The IOC reviewed Board Resolution Nos. 2020/1 and 2020/2, which stipulate that applicants for At Large/Non Agency-Specific seats on specified bodies are to be interviewed by a Board subcommittee. The Resolutions further permit a Board Committee to select a screening committee to assist in interviewing applicants for appointment. Upon review of the eligible seats, the IOC made a determination that it would conduct interviews for At Large seats on the following bodies: Retirement Board, Fire Advisory Commission, Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, Treasury Oversight Committee, Airport Land Use Commission, and the Fish & Wildlife Committee; and that screening and nomination fill At Large seats on all other eligible bodies would be delegated each body or a subcommittee thereof. The Treasury Oversight Committee is responsible for reviewing the County's investment policy, monitoring the performance of County investments, and reporting to the Board of Supervisors. The Committee is composed of seven statutory members and three alternates: County Superintendent of Schools or designee, a representative and an alternate of the Board of Supervisors or their designees, one representative and one alternate elected by a majority of the school and community college districts; one representative and one alternate elected by a majority of the special districts, three public members nominated by the County Treasurer and confirmed by the Board. On April 30, 2022, the terms of the BOS Member Alternate, Public 1 and Public 2 seats will expire. Following a two-week recruitment conducted by the Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office (media announcement is attached for reference), the County received three applications: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 655-2056 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: CAO (Enea), Treasurer-Tax Collector C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE TREASURY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Kenneth Miller (Attended the 2/15/2022 TOC meeting as a member of the public)1. Larry Fernandes (Current Alternate Board of Supervisor Representative whose term ends 4/30/2022. Attended 5 out of 6 TOC meetings since 11/17/2020 – 2/15/2022. Mr. Fernandes expressed he would like to be a voting member in Public Representative, Seat 2. 2. Dennis Reigle (Current Public Representative, Seat 1 whose term ends 4/30/2022. Attended 5 out of 6 TOC meetings 11/17/2020 – 2/15/2022) 3. The IOC met with and considered all three applicants at its regular meeting on April 11, 2022 and recommends the reappointment of Mr. Reigle to the seat he currently holds, appointment of Mr. Fernandes to the Public 2 seat, and appointment of Mr. Miller to the Alternate Board of Supervisors Representative seat to terms that will expire on April 30, 2026. ATTACHMENTS Media Release_Treasury Oversight Committee_3-9-22 Application_Larry Fernandes_Treasury Overight Cte Application_Kenneth Miller_Treasury Overight Cte Application_Dennis Reigle_Treasury Overight Cte Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office ● 625 Court Street ● Martinez, CA 94553 ● www.cctax.us Media Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Russell Watts Wednesday, March 9, 2022 Phone: (925) 608-9588 Email: russell.watts@tax.cccounty.us WOULD YOU LIKE TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY’S TREASURY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE? The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking individuals with sound knowledge and experience in the field of public and private finance, to serve on the Treasury Oversight Committee (Committee) for the Alternate seat representing the County Board of Supervisors and two Public Representative Seats for terms May 1, 2022 to April 30, 2026. To be considered, candidates must be County residents, may not be employed by an entity that has contributed to the reelection campaign of the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors in the previous three years , may not directly or indirectly raise money for the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors while a member of the Committee and may not work for bond underwriters, bond counsel, security brokerages or dealers, or financial services firms with whom the county treasurer does business, either during his or her tenure on the committee or for one year after leaving the Committee. (Government Code §27132.3). The Committee meets at 3:00 p.m. on the third Tuesday of the month following each quarter at 625 Court St, Room B001, Martinez, CA 94553. Each meeting lasts approximately one hour. Currently, meetings are conducted via teleconference per Government Code section 54953(e). The Committee’s duties include reviewing and monitoring the County Treasurer’s annual investment policy, and ensuring an annual audit is conducted to determine the County Treasurer is in compliance with Government Code §§27130-27137. The annual audits, meeting agendas and minutes of the Committee are available online: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/690/Treasury-Oversight-Committee. Members of the Committee receive no compensation for their service. Application forms can be obtained from the Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board by calling (925) 655-2000 or by clicking on the following link: Submit an Application Online. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than Wednesday, March 23, 2022 by 5 p.m. Interviews will be held at the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) meeting, which will be conducted at 10:30 a.m. on April 11, 2022. More information about the Treasury Oversight Committee can be obtained by visiting the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/690/Treasury-Oversight- Committee. ### Contra Costa County BOARDS, COMMITTEES. AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATION Please return completed applications to: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors \1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 or email to: ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us Las t N am e j..z,_ Prima Phone est number to reach ou Em State Postal Code I ilf¢er� I ]; � --1 ..-I - �unty, p1'5e enter N/ A): ! I District Locah? Tool Do you work in Contra Costa County? 1:ifle� [SfNo If Yes, in which District do you work? I I Current Employ er Job Titl e L ength of Employment How long have you lived or worked in Contra Costa County? I 17 ial Board Committee or Commission s.-e=-a_t,..N_a�m;.;:;e'----------,--.....,...__,.., I Ire/J.. 5v7 D tr€»"'f [ jh±: (otrvn{ t:tee- I I & b (,· e--f{ e f � Sk½,'11'\ b'@ H ave you ev er attend ed a meeting&f t advisory board for which you are applying? Pease check one: es 0No If Yes, how many?..-------------.___________ ___. EDUCATIO N Che'} appropriate box if you possess one of the following: u;(High School Diploma D CA High School Proficiency Certificate Colleges or Univers ities Attended Occupational Lic enses Completed: D G.E.D. Certificate .-----------------. Certificate Awarded for Training? t-----------------41 '□t: �=: Other Trainings Completed: Do you ha ve any obligations that might a ffect your attendance at scheduled m eetings? □ Yes �If Yes, please explain: Would you like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodi es for which you may b e qualified? Oves� Are you a v et era n of the U.S. Arm ed Forces? □Yes �o PAGE 1 of 3 THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, committee, or commission. c v .IY'e.v.--H ( 0 "' ~ ~ fr~ .rd C< s-c;: Pl-' t1'fe_ r ~ f1: d_ d._ r/~ 1.Jve_ J ~ //fA:; ~ .. c (c j YU cl"" / ~· n ~<I\ CR_; if\ cr6 ~ f>' CNV\_ ) l.v\lA""-"'~~ T. j:'"'"' -0 e.. ft:< ~ ., • s-h.v. v e_ Cl. s1 qrJ. . r v-e.s n' 01"\S' d..t1-iif/\J ~~~"-~ AY\.J wo~(J. dJ.J //1A0/1'£ v r 7 ct ~ A.. () 0 t7~ ,;1/-.fb;llf.A b evr If\ ./ Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume). this application: Please check one D No Are you currently or have y~u er been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board? Please check one: Yes No If Yes, please list the o ntra C:OstaQnty advisory board(s) on which you are currently serving: I 1>:e aJ u:~ 0 uM>C<t ~ f= a ~VV\. 1'--ttee.-.-A/ .f{,fo Q! tc-~~ iV\!;l:tV If Yes, please alsHst the Contr/costa County advisory board(s) on which you have previously served: List any volunteer and community experience, including any boards on which you have served. Do you have a familial relationship with a me er of the Board of Supervisors? (Please refer to the relationships listed under the "Important Information" sec on on page 3 of this application or Resolution No. 2021/234). Please check one:Qes If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationshipsoc with e county, suc._h_a_s_g-ra_n_t-s,-c-o-n-tr_a_ct_s_, o_r_o_t_h-er_e_c_o_n_o_m_ic_r_e_la-t -io-n-sh_i__,ps? Please check one:nYes o If Yes, please idenhfv1he nature o e relationship: ..._ ______________________________________ ~ PAGE 2 of 3 THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT LARRY FERNANDES , Walnut Creek, California 94598 SUMMARY Senior asset management executive with managerial and direct business development and client relationship experience. Motivated by learning and new challenges seeking a leadership position including combined sales and service teams targeting a focused client segment. A proven and successful strategic thinker who works through challenges and builds out and executes a plan to achieve success. Hands on leader who wotks directly with clients and prospects understanding their needs to then provide appropriate solutions. Passionate about diversity, financial literacy and education. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WELLS FARGO ASSET MANAGEMENT Executive Vice President, Managing Director National Sales Manager -Balance Sheet & Insurance Asset Management San Francisco, CA 1987-2020 1999-2020 Manage a 16 member team providing investment solutions for institutional clients balance sheet pools Expanded and built out the team in line with organizational growth in scale, capabilities and scope Added mutual funds and private placement structures in addition to separate account capabilities to meet client demand Managed teams, product offerings and business through multiple interest rate cycles and various organizational changes • Launched cross sell efforts with the Wholesale Bank at Wells Fargo increasing the opportunity set and our success rate Selected Acbievements My team exceeded our sales goal 17 of 20 years and in the years we fell short we always exceeded 90%+ Rebranded the team Balance Sheet Asset Management Sales with additional focus beyond short duration o Started the insurance asset management sales practice moving us up into a top 12 status o Embraced on a long duration goal for the team with added focus on captives, banks & healthcare Senior Vice President. ClientRelationshipManagementManager-LiquidityManagement Team 1996-1999 Managed a team of 5 relationship managers focused on providing separate account fixed income solutions for balance sheet asset pools. Managed the team through multiple mergers including First Interstate and Norwest Bank. Vice President Relationship Manager -Liquidity Management Team 1990-1996 Built and managed 37 client relationships of institutional clients for the Liquidity Mamgement team in partnership with client administration, portfolio management and business development. Maintained and grew my book of business as a top performer. Assistqnt Jlice Preyident Portfolio Mqnager -Wealth Trost Diyltion 198 Z-1990 Managed high net worth trust clients' portfolio asset allocations into diversified trust funds from other unique structures. Implemented operational efficiencies that resulted in better client return results. WILSHIRE ASSOCIATES Santa Monica, CA Investment Consulting Grou12 Senior Research Analyst Manager 1986-1987 Managed research analyst team of eight supporting the investment consultant group. Research Analyst 1984-1986 Created effective quarterly client meeting reports and w01ked on special projects for the consultant team. EDUCATION & ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE San Francisco State University Master of Business Administration -Corporate Finance and Business Management San Diego State University Bachelor of Science -Business Administration, Emphasis Finance Minor: Psychology San Francisco, CA 1990 San Diego, CA 1984 -Chair Finance Committee for Family Aid Catholic Education, Investment Committee Member Oakland Diocese and Member Treasury Oversight Committee for Contra Costa County -FINRA Series 6, 82, 63, 26 and 24 Licensed I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and understand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand and agree that misstatements and/or ommissions of material fact may cause forfeiture of my rights to serve on a board, committee, or commission in Contra Costa County. Date: I R /2 2-zz;si I I Submit this application to: ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us OR Clerk of the Board 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Questions about this application? Contact the Clerk of the Board at {925) 655-2000 or by email at ClerkofTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us Im p ortant Information 1. This application and any attachments you provide to it is a public document and is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code §6250-6270). 2. All members of appointed bodies are required to take the advisory body training provided by Contra Costa County. 3. Members of certain boards, commissions, and committees may be required to: 1) file a Statement of Economic Interest Form also known as a Form 700, and 2) complete the State Ethics Training Course as required by AB 1234. 4. Meetings may be held in various locations and some locations may not be accessible by public transportation. 5. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and may occur up to two (2) days per month. 6. Some boards, committees, or commissions may assign members to subcommittees or work groups which may require an additional commitment oftime. 7. As indicated in Board Resolution 2021/234, a person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors' member in any of the following relationships: (1) Mother, father, son, and daughter; (2) Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter; (3) Husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter; {4} Registered domestic partner, pursuant to California Family Code section 297; (5) The relatives, as defined in 1 and 2 above, for a registered domestic partner; (6) Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the Political Reform Act {Gov't Code §87103, Financial Interest), such as a business partner or business associate. PAGE 3of3 THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT Submit Date: Feb 14, 2022 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Home Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Email Address Employer Job Title Contra Costa County Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile District Locator Tool Resident of Supervisorial District: District 4 Length of Employment 26 years Do you work in Contra Costa County? Yes No If Yes, in which District do you work? How long have you lived or worked in Contra Costa County? 41 years Are you a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces? Yes No Board and Interest Which Boards would you like to apply for? Treasury Oversight Committee: Submitted Kenneth C Miller Walnut Creek CA 94597 Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco CFO (Retired 1/4/21) Kenneth C Miller Seat Name Soon to be vacant Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? Yes No If Yes, how many meetings have you attended? Education Select the option that applies to your high school education * High School Diploma College/ University A Name of College Attended UC Santa Barbara Degree Type / Course of Study / Major BA Economics Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University B Name of College Attended UC Santa Barbara Degree Type / Course of Study / Major MA Economics Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University C Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Kenneth C Miller Upload a Resume Degree Awarded? Yes No Other Trainings & Occupational Licenses Other Training A Certificate Awarded for Training? Yes No Other Training B Certificate Awarded for Training? Yes No Occupational Licenses Completed: Qualifications and Volunteer Experience Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, commitee, or commission. As a long time resident of Contra Costa County I am looking to give back to my community in retirement. Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) I have over 40 years quantitative economics, finance and investment management experience. As an executive (the last 11 years as CFO) of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco through 1/4/21 I managed a balance sheet that included as much as $35-50 billion in fixed income investments. Would you like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodies for which you may be qualified? Yes No Do you have any obligations that might affect your attendance at scheduled meetings? Yes No If Yes, please explain: Kenneth C Miller Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board? Yes No If Yes, please list the Contra Costa County advisory board(s) on which you are currently serving: If Yes, please also list the Contra Costa County advisory board(s) on which you have previously served: List any volunteer or community experience, including any advisory boards on which you have served. Board of Trustees of the Athena Academy. Conflict of Interest and Certification Do you have a familial or financial relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? (Please refer to the relationships listed under the "Important Information" section below or Resolution No. 2021/234) Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the County such as grants, contracts, or other economic relationships? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Please Agree with the Following Statement I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and undersand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand that misstatements and/or omissions of material fact may cause forfeiture of my rights to serve on a board, committee, or commission in Contra Costa County. I Agree Important Information Kenneth C Miller 1. This application and any attachments you provide to it is a public document and is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code §6250-6270). 2. All members of appointed bodies are required to take the advisory body training provided by Contra Costa County. 3. Members of certain boards, commissions, and committees may be required to: (1) file a Statement of Economic Interest Form also known as a Form 700, and (2) complete the State Ethics Training Course as required by AB 1234. 4. Meetings may be held in various locations and some locations may not be accessible by public transportation. 5. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and may occur up to two (2) days per month. 6. Some boards, committees, or commissions may assign members to subcommittees or work groups which may require an additional commitment of time. 7. As indicated in Board Resolution 2021/234, a person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors' member in any of the following relationships: (1) Mother, father, son, and daughter; (2) Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter; (3) Husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter; (4) Registered domestic partner, pursuant to California Family Code section 297; (5) The relatives, as defined in 1 and 2 above, for a registered domestic partner; (6) Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the Political Reform Act (Gov't Code §87103, Financial Interest), such as a business partner or business associate. Kenneth C Miller Kenneth C. Miller 1 Kenneth C. Miller Executive Vice-President, CFO (retired) Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Ken Miller is an innovative financial executive with a unique blend of deep subject matter expertise across a broad range of financial and risk disciplines, combined with an ability to work collaboratively with executive management and the board directors to establish corporate strategy that is aligned with business purpose and mission. During Ken’s career he has been focused on and successful at delivering superior financial performance. He has led teams that have transformed financial and risk management frameworks, executed significant capital restructurings, and developed innovative financial and business performance metrics. Ken has over 26 years of experience as the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco’s key financial executive, providing the Board with value-added insight on the Bank’s mission, strategy, financial performance and financial management. This broad experience has prepared him to be successful in the key Director roles of strategic oversight and governance. At the same time, Ken is capable of advisory roles and enjoys rolling up his sleeves to help understand and solution difficult or complex issues. Ken’s considerable financial management, risk management, strategic planning, financial reporting and accounting experience, qualify him as a financial expert, and make him highly valued to serve on a variety of Board committees, including Finance, Audit, and Risk. Ken is driven to succeed and defines success as being part of a high performing team that positively influences the mission and business purpose of an organization. He demonstrates high standards of integrity and ethics in his personal and business endeavors, and always operates with transparency and authenticity. This quality has earned Ken high levels of trust and confidence within the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, its Board of Directors, and its Regulator. Ken seeks opportunities with businesses and organizations with a strong focus on mission and purpose and that understand and emphasize the roles they play in the communities they serve. Ken is currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the Athena Academy, a private non-profit grade 1-8 school for bright, creative, and capable dyslexic students. Kenneth C. Miller 2 SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: • Seasoned and innovative financial services senior executive with a proven track record in all aspects of strategic and financial planning, financial management and performance, treasury and capital markets, risk management, accounting and reporting, mergers and acquisition analysis, operations, and technology system implementation. • 26 years of experience working with financial services Boards, providing strategic and tactical perspectives and solutions on strategic planning, financial performance and management, capital management, and corporate goal setting. • Designed and directed development of financial management, budgeting, planning, and management reporting frameworks for a $100+ billion wholesale bank, resulting in improved financial performance and better communication of financial performance and risks to management committees and Board of Directors.. • Designed and directed $6+ billion capital restructuring, resulting in improved financial strength and improved dividend paying capacity. • Provided executive leadership on implementation of significant enterprise technology systems. • Ability to provide creative and practical solutions to a diverse set of business and financial challenges. • Developed high performing and diverse Finance Leadership team. • An effective mentor, and an advocate for diversity, preparing and promoting highly qualified women and black team members to senior officer roles. • Collaborative management and working style. • Excellent oral and written presentation skills. • Clear and straightforward communication style. EXPERIENCE: 6/21 to Present. Member Board of Trustees, Athena Academy, Palo, Alto California Athena Academy is a grade 1-8, non-profit private school for dyslexic children. Athena uses the best teaching methods for each student based on current scientific research. Athena Academy is fully accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 7/94 to 1/21. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (retired) The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco is a regional Federal Home Loan Bank chartered by Congress in 1932 to provide a source of liquidity to help financial institutions chartered in California, Arizona and Nevada support housing finance and community investment in the areas they serve. As of 12/31/19, the Bank had total assets of over $110 billion, annual net income of over $300 million, and annual capital markets debt issuance of over $200 billion. 8/2011 to 1/2021. Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer Direct report to the Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Bank’s Executive Leadership Team. Functional responsible for all treasury, financial, and balance sheet management; capital management, financial and strategic planning, budgeting, accounting and financial reporting, and operations. Actively support the oversight responsibilities of the Board of Directors on a variety of key Kenneth C. Miller 3 financial and strategic issues. Develop, motivate and manage a professional staff of 70, including 7 direct reporting senior officers. 1/2001 to 8/2011. Senior Vice-President, Financial Risk Management and Strategic Planning Reporting to the Chief Operating Officer, responsible for market risk measurement and management, balance sheet management, financial planning, strategic planning, corporate budgeting, and a variety of special projects. 7/94 to 1/2001. Vice-President Financial Risk Management Reporting to the Chief Financial Officer, responsible for market risk measurement and management, financial planning, derivatives valuation, investments, and a variety of special projects. 12/86 to 7/94. First Nationwide Bank, San Francisco, CA. (subsequently known as Cal Fed) Senior Vice-President, Asset/Liability Management. Responsible for all balance sheet management, portfolio management and capital strategies for a $20 billion savings and loan. 7/77 to 12/86. Various analyst and middle-management positions in the gas and electric (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) and telecommunications (GTE Sprint Communications) industries, and financial services (Homestead Savings), focused on quantitative economic, financial and strategic planning analyses. EDUCATION: M.A. Economics, 1977. University of California, Santa Barbara. B.A. Economics, 1975. University of California, Santa Barbara. Submit Date: Mar 10, 2022 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Home Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Email Address Employer Job Title Contra Costa County Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile District Locator Tool Resident of Supervisorial District: District 2 Length of Employment Do you work in Contra Costa County? Yes No If Yes, in which District do you work? How long have you lived or worked in Contra Costa County? Are you a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces? Yes No Board and Interest Which Boards would you like to apply for? Treasury Oversight Committee: Submitted Seat Name Public Seat #1 Dennis R Reigle Danville CA 94506 Retired Dennis R Reigle Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? Yes No If Yes, how many meetings have you attended? 15 Education Select the option that applies to your high school education * High School Diploma College/ University A Name of College Attended University of Cincinnati Degree Type / Course of Study / Major B.A. Psychology Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University B Name of College Attended Harvard University Degree Type / Course of Study / Major MBA Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University C Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Degree Awarded? Yes No Dennis R Reigle Upload a Resume Other Trainings & Occupational Licenses Other Training A Certificate Awarded for Training? Yes No Other Training B Certificate Awarded for Training? Yes No Occupational Licenses Completed: Qualifications and Volunteer Experience Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, commitee, or commission. I have financial experience and have served on the Treasury Oversight Committee for the last 4 years. Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) Service on the TOC for the last 4 years. Would you like to be considered for appointment to other advisory bodies for which you may be qualified? Yes No Do you have any obligations that might affect your attendance at scheduled meetings? Yes No If Yes, please explain: Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board? Yes No Dennis R Reigle If Yes, please list the Contra Costa County advisory board(s) on which you are currently serving: Merit Board If Yes, please also list the Contra Costa County advisory board(s) on which you have previously served: List any volunteer or community experience, including any advisory boards on which you have served. Board Executive Committee, Sons In Retirement, Chapter 128 Conflict of Interest and Certification Do you have a familial or financial relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? (Please refer to the relationships listed under the "Important Information" section below or Resolution No. 2021/234) Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the County such as grants, contracts, or other economic relationships? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Please Agree with the Following Statement I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and undersand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand that misstatements and/or omissions of material fact may cause forfeiture of my rights to serve on a board, committee, or commission in Contra Costa County. I Agree Important Information Dennis R Reigle 1. This application and any attachments you provide to it is a public document and is subject to the California Public Records Act (CA Government Code §6250-6270). 2. All members of appointed bodies are required to take the advisory body training provided by Contra Costa County. 3. Members of certain boards, commissions, and committees may be required to: (1) file a Statement of Economic Interest Form also known as a Form 700, and (2) complete the State Ethics Training Course as required by AB 1234. 4. Meetings may be held in various locations and some locations may not be accessible by public transportation. 5. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and may occur up to two (2) days per month. 6. Some boards, committees, or commissions may assign members to subcommittees or work groups which may require an additional commitment of time. 7. As indicated in Board Resolution 2021/234, a person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors' member in any of the following relationships: (1) Mother, father, son, and daughter; (2) Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter; (3) Husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter; (4) Registered domestic partner, pursuant to California Family Code section 297; (5) The relatives, as defined in 1 and 2 above, for a registered domestic partner; (6) Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the Political Reform Act (Gov't Code §87103, Financial Interest), such as a business partner or business associate. Dennis R Reigle RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to the District IV alternate seat on the Assessment Appeals Board to a term ending on September 1, 2024: Maimoona Ahmed Concord, CA FISCAL IMPACT: n/a BACKGROUND: Established May 29, 1973 by Ordinance 73-45, the Appeals Board is the Board of Equalization for the County, with the powers to equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the County for the purpose of taxation and review, equalization and adjust penal and escaped assessments on the roll. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain vacant APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Chow, (925) 655-2350 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Maimoona Ahmed to the District IV Alternate seat on the Assessment Appeals Board CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: n/a RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Joaquin Lopez from the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, effective immediately; DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 5 Seat on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, for a term with an expiration date of December 31, 2024, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND: The Alamo MAC may advise the Board of Supervisors on services that are or may be provided to the Alamo community by Contra Costa County or other local government agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, parks and recreation, lighting and landscaping, public health, safety, welfare, public works, code enforcement, land use and planning, transportation and other infrastructure. The Council may also provide APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Alamo MAC, Maddy Book, Appointee C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RESIGNATION FROM THE ALAMO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) input and reports to the District Supervisor, Board of Supervisors, County staff or any County hearing body on issues of concern to the community. The Council may represent the Alamo community before the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. The Council may also represent the Alamo community before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes effecting the community. The Council may advocate on parks and recreation issues to the Town of Danville and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will not be vacated. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.33 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Alamo Municipal Advisory Council Seat: Appointee 5 Seat A ppointments will be made after May 10, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 26, 2022. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to $:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors An ~ty Administrator By: ~ tlu..t& Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Vincent Burgos from the Appointee 6 Seat on the County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee effective May 11, 2022; DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 6 Seat on the County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2023, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND: The advisory committee functions to advise the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Department on the needs of the Blackhawk community for extended police services which shall include, but not limited to enforcement of the State Vehicle Code, crime prevention and litter control. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will not be vacated. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CSA P-2A, , Appointee C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RESIGNATION FROM THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-2A CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.34 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, ist Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee County Service Area P-2A Citizens Advisory Committee Seat: Appointee 6 A ppointments will be made after May 10, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 26, 2022. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .D OCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~ministrator By: JLLQK) ~ +DePUtYaerk RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Genevieve Herron, effective immediately; DECLARE a vacancy in the Youth Representative Seat on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, for a term ending December 31, 2024, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND: The Alamo MAC may advise the Board of Supervisors on services that are or may be provided to the Alamo community by Contra Costa County or other local government agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, parks and recreation, lighting and landscaping, public health, safety, welfare, public works, code enforcement, land use and planning, transportation and other infrastructure. The Council may also provide input and reports to the District Supervisor, Board of Supervisors, County staff or any County hearing body on issues of concern to the community. The Council may represent the Alamo community before the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. The Council may also represent the Alamo community before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes effecting the community. The Council may advocate on parks and recreation issues to the Town of Danville and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Alamo MAC, Appointee C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RESIGNATION FROM THE ALAMO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will not be vacated. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.35 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, ist Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Alamo Municipal Advisory Council Seat: Youth Representative Seat A pp ointments will be made after May 10, 2022 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 26, 2022. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to $:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M :\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~dministrator By: Ll/\Rd) ~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation Adjustment No. 5044 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $270,000 from Probation Programs (0308) to General Services - Fleet Operations (0063) for the purchase of three sprinter vans that will serve as mobile offices to allow Probation Department to provide comprehensive Pretrial services to the community. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases appropriations in the Fleet Internal Service Fund (0064) and reduces appropriations in Probation Programs (0308) by $270,000. The new vehicles will be from the SB129 Pretrial Release Program. 100% State; No County Match. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 129, Budget Act of 2021 has allocated funding to provide every superior court in California with information and resources to support judicial officers in making pretrial release decisions that impose the least restrictive conditions to address public safety and return to court, and to implement appropriate monitoring practices and provision of services for released individuals. The funding is in two parts: One time implementation funds and Ongoing Funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase of Three Sprinter Vans for the Probation Department's Pretrial Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Probation Department is using a portion of the one time funds to purchase three sprinter vans. Transportation continues to be a barrier for serve for Probation clients. The sprinter vans will allow for mobile Probation Offices in our community so that we can connect our clients with much needed services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations will not be properly allocated. The Probation Department will not be able to utilize a mobile service delivery model. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27 AP005044 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations & Adjustment No. 5044 Type text here 4/21/22 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5042 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $754,530 from the State Superior Court (SB 129 Pretrial Release Program) and appropriating it to Probation Programs (0308) for the one time expenditures for the expansion of pretrial services. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenue and appropriations by $754,530. (100% State, No County Match) BACKGROUND: California Senate Bill 129, Budget Act of 2021 allocated funding to every Superior Court in California to support judicial officers in making pretrial release decisions that impose the least restrictive conditions, to address public safety and return to court, and to implement appropriate monitoring practices and provision of services for released individuals. Funds were provided for one time set up costs as well as ongoing expenses. This action is to recognize and appropriate the revenue for one time expenditures. The funds will be primarily used for the purchase of vehicles and equipment and to setup office space for the expansion of the pretrial program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriations Adj. to Recognize Revenue for the Expansion of Pretrial Services CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The new revenue and associated expenditures will not be properly recognized in the department operating budget. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27 AP005042 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations & Adjustment No. 5042 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT T/C 24 ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: 0308 Probation Programs ORGANIZATION REVENUE ACCOUNT REVENUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE> 3047 9362 ST AID CRIME CONTROL APPROVED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: BY: __________ _ DATE ____ _ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: YES: NO: BY: __________ _ DATE ___ _ (M 8134 Rev. 2/86) 754,530 00 00 TOTALS 754,530 00 00 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST To appropriate revenue received from State Revenue -SB 129 Pretrial Release Program for the expansion of pretrial services. o/)��� Danielle Fokkema Chief of Administrative Services 4/13/2022 SIGNATURE TITLE DATE REVENUE ADJ. JOURNAL NO. RAOO S()L/2. --------- 4/21/22 ACCOUNT CODING EXPENDITURE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT TIC 27 BUDGET UNIT: 0308 Probation Programs ORGANIZATION SUB-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 3047 2100 OFFICE EXPENSE 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 2110 2131 2132 2284 2310 2467 4953 COMMUNICATIONS MINOR FURNITURE/ EQUIPMENT MINOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REQUESTED MAINTENANCE NON CNTY PROF SPCLZD SVCS TRAINING AND REGISTRATION AUTOS & TRUCKS AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY: [Kl BOARD OF SUPERVISORS [Kl COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <DECREASE> INCREASE 6,930 30,000 39,800 8,800 186,000 100,000 8,000 375,000 754,530 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0990 0990 6301 6301 Reserve for Appropriations Appropriate New Revenue 754,530 00 APPROVED DATE 'Td{) /2,J- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: BY: _________ _ DATE ___ _ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: YES: NO: BY: _________ _ DATE ___ _ (M129 Rev 2186) TOTALS 754,530 00 1,509,060 00 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST To appropriate revenue received from State Revenue -SB 129 Pretrial Release Program for the expansion of pretrial services. ����Danielle Fokkema Chief of Administrative Services SIGNATURE TITLE APPROPRIATION APOO 4/13/2022 DATE :J) '12. -------- ADJ. JOURNAL NO. 4/21/22 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT an "Oppose Unless Amended" position on Assembly Bill 2295 (Bloom), a bill that would require a qualified housing development on land owned by a local educational agency, charter school, or office of education, be an authorized use if the housing development complies with certain conditions, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Legislation Committee heard this item at its April 11, 2022 meeting and directed that it be brought to the full Board of Supervisors recommending a position of "Oppose Unless Amended". Contra Costa's adopted 2021-22 State Legislative Platform includes the following policy relevant to the subject bill: Land Use/Community Development/Natural Resources : MAINTAIN local agency land use authority. Measure:AB-2295 Lead Authors:Bloom (A) Coauthors:Robert Rivas (A) Topic:Local educational agencies: housing development projects 31st Day in Print: 3/19/2022 Title:An act to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 17505) to Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relating to housing. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 655-2915 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:AB 2295 (Bloom) Local educational agencies: housing development projects - Oppose Unless Amended BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) House Location:Assembly Last Amended Date:3/29/2022 Committee Location:Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee Hearing Date:4/20/2022 The bill provides that a housing development project must be deemed an authorized use on any real property owned by a local educational agency (LEA) if it meets specified affordability criteria and planning standards. (From the 4/1/2022 bill analysis) LEA's currently have well known exemptions from local regulations for constructing educational facilities. The subject bill would effectively extend those exemptions to cover the construction of housing (with restricted occupancy and income criteria as defined in the bill). This would allow school districts, the County Office of Education, or charter schools to develop property as housing outside the County's voter approved (Measure L-2006) urban limit line (ULL), "...even if that is inconsistent with any provision of a city’s or county’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation." (From the 4/1/2022 bill analysis) This is in conflict with the Board's adopted legislative platform which includes, "MAINTAIN local agency land use authority." and a central component of the County's growth management strategy which is the Urban Limit Line (originally passed in 1990 and reaffirmed in 2006). In addition to the conflicts with local regulation, the bill is in conflict with the State's greenhouse gas reduction legislation (AB 32 [2006], SB 375 [2008], SB 743 [2013], et al), which have a goal of more compact development to reduce vehicle miles traveled and land consumption. While the limitations on extending services to any parcels outside the ULL will ultimately be a significant constraining factor, staff believes that asserting local land use authority through the ULL is preferable to relying on these other constraints that are outside of the County's direct control. The following is an inventory of school district owned land outside the ULL: Parcel #Owner ACREAGE 075051013 ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 11.89 365020018 BRIONES VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.582 002010026 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.57 002010027 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.43 002010047 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.73 257070008 CANYON ELEM SCHOOL DIST 1 354201005 CARQUINEZ SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.9 015170028 KNIGHTSEN ELEM SCHOOL DIST 19.97 011210026 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 26.05 011210027 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 23.95 018310011 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 36.81 018310012 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 9.52 018310013 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 10.03 018310014 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 18.57 011210028 LIBERTY UNION SCHOOL DIST 14.1 In considering this potential expansion of land use authority for school districts it is useful to consider the related issue of incorporating land use planning principles and interagency coordination into school siting. In 2012, the Department of Education (DOE) launched a significant process to reform their school siting guidelines in response to AB32 (2006), and SB375 (2008). There was a "summit" at the start of the process that stressed the need for the DOE to have policies consistent with the new, GHG reduction paradigm. The DOE subsequently conducted hearings and initiated public outreach. The process stopped several years later with no explanation or announcement. Inquiries to the state have either gone unanswered or were responded to with limited information. The school siting guidelines were never updated. At the local level, the County has engaged on local school district issues on several occasions to ensure that transportation safety, access, land use compatibility, and environmental law were adequately addressed with the purchase of and development of new school sites. Considering the challenges experienced with the development of land central to their core mission, educating youth, expanding authority to include housing development raises concerns. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors send a letter to the author (attached) expresssing support for the concept due to the acute housing crisis but also requesting an amendment that would exclude areas outside a local jurisdiction's voter-approved or Board/Council-adopted urban limit line, urban growth boundary, urban service area, urban development boundary, urban/rural Board/Council-adopted urban limit line, urban growth boundary, urban service area, urban development boundary, urban/rural boundary, or the equivalent and to engage like-minded organizations in order to build a coalition in support of this position. Registered Support/Opposition California State Association of Counties is engaged on the bill but has not yet established a position. Support CityLab - UCLA (Sponsor) Landed Los Angeles Unified School District SPUR Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley East Bay for Everyone SV@Home Action Fund Support If Amended California School Boards Association Opposition Oppose Unless Amended State Building & Construction Trades Council of California California State Pipe Trades Council Coalition of California Utility Employees International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 18 International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 8 Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Inventory of Growth Boundaries Staff could not find a definitive list of the various types of growth boundaries in California. The following is a partial list compiled by the Greenbelt Alliance: Alameda County: Alameda County, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton Contra Costa County: Antioch, Contra Costa County, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Martinez, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek Marin County: Marin County, Novato Napa County: American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, Yountville San Mateo County: San Mateo County Santa Clara County: Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, San Jose Solano County: Benicia, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Vallejo, Vacaville Sonoma County: Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Windsor Beyond the Bay Area: Solvang, Winters CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There is currently no opposition to AB 2295 that cites loss of local land use authority or the undermining of coherent land development patterns as a concern. If the recommended action is not taken, the bill could pass, undermining the County's decades long growth management effort. In addition, it would be reasonable to expect secondary, unintended consequences of the bill related to longer term land speculation and development through the formation of developer/school district partnerships to proactively use this new authority. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS April 2022 Ltr-BOS to AM_BloomREAB2295 school housing MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Letter re AB 2295 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Diane Burgis, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District April 26, 2022 The Honorable Richard Bloom 50th Assembly District State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0050 AB 2295 (Bloom) Local educational agencies: housing development projects. OPPOSE Unless Amended Dear Assemblymember Bloom, On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I am writing regarding the subject bill which would require that a housing development project be deemed an authorized use on any real property owned by a local educational agency (LEA) if it meets specified occupancy, affordability, and planning criteria. The Board is currently opposed to the bill unless it is amended consistent with revisions described below. In its current state the bill conflicts with several significant policies, local and state. At the local level, Contra Costa and many other jurisdictions have enacted an Urban Limit Line (ULL), Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), or the equivalent. Contra Costa’s ULL has been in place for over 30 years and has twice been reaffirmed by voters countywide. The line was placed strategically to delineate adequate developable land to accommodate growth within the ULL and preserve farmland and habitat outside the line. Our ULL policy includes a review requirement to ensure an adequate supply of developable land over time. Contra Costa’s most recent review included representatives of the building industry who did not take issue with the ULL. The finding that there was an adequate supply of developable land was uncontested during the review process. Further policy conflict can be found relative to the State’s own greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction legislation (AB32 [2006], SB 375 [2008], SB 743 [2013]). Local jurisdictions faithfully responded to these legislative directives by implementing policy changes and modifying land development patterns to reduce GHGs. The subject bill would contradict this prior direction and upend recent gains. California deserves a more coherent approach to land development regulations. Monica Nino Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 Contra Costa County g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2022\april 2022 ltr-bos to am_bloomreab2295 school housing.docx We support efforts to increase the housing supply and believe that school districts should have an enhanced ability to develop homes on their property so long as the land is within an urban limit line. The Board respectfully requests that the subject bill remove the exemptions established in AB 2295 for land outside an adopted ULL/UGB or the equivalent. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the County’s legislative advocate, Jim Gross (JGross@nmgovlaw.com), or the County’s Principal Planner, John Cunningham at john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us. Sincerely, Karen Mitchoff, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc: Contra Costa County Legislative Delegation John Kopchik, Conservation and Development Lou Ann Texeira, Contra Costa LAFCO John Hoang, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Chris Lee, California State Association of Counties Amanda Brown-Stevens, Greenbelt Alliance Edward Sortwell Clement, Jr., Save Mount Diablo RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25709 to reallocate the salary on the salary schedule for the classification of Hazardous Materials Technician (V4WF) (represented) at salary plan and grade T35-1409 from ($5,257 - $5,796) to salary plan and grade T35-1409 ($5,257 - $6,390) in the Health Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $21,054 with pension costs of $8,164 already included. Since the Hazardous Materials Program is 100% fee based, there will not be an impact to the County' s General Fund. The cost will be offset entirely with Certified Unified Program Agency Permit Fees. BACKGROUND: This classification handles more technical and advanced tasks such as performing research to determine the chemical compatibility of personal protective equipment and participates in the Incident Response Administrative Team and the CCHMP Health & Safety Committee, calibrate and maintain instruments, maintain the County’s Hazardous Materials trucks and response vehicles and find cost effective methods of proper disposal. Therefore, the department is requesting APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauren Jimenez (925) 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lauren Jimenez, Larita Clow, Parna Kamyabfar, Kathi Caudel, Ramona Lurvey-Hair, Adam Springer, Sylvia Wong Tam C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the Salary of the Classification of Hazardous Materials Technician on the Salary Schedule in the Health Services Department BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for two additional steps in the salary structure. While conducting a salary survey to determine if adding pay steps in the salary structure is appropriate, Santa Clara County was the only comparable classification found within the Bay Area. To retain competent and highly skilled Hazardous Materials Technicians, the recommendation to add two additional pay steps to this classification is fair and appropriate. Adding these two additional pay steps will promote upward mobility towards the Hazardous Materials Specialist classification series, prevent retention issues, and have a competitive salary structure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Hazardous Materials Program will not be able to retain qualified staff which will adversely impact the services of the program. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25709 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25709 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25709 DATE 3/15/2021 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0452 Org No. 5875 Agenc y No. A18 Action Requested: Reallocate Classification of Hazardous Materials Technician on the Salary Schedule in the Health Services Department Proposed Effective Date: 3/1/2022 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: 0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $21,686.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $7,229.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Certified Unified Program Agency Permit Fees Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Lauren Jimenez ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Kennard for 3/23/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/18/2022 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25709 to reallocate the salary on the salary schedule for the classification of Hazardous Materials Technician (V4WF) (Represented) at salary plan and grade T35-1409 from ($5,257 - $5,796) to salary plan and grade T35-1409 ($5,257 - $6,390) in the Health Services Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Sanyukta Singh 4/18/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/21/2022 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25853 to reallocate the salary of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures-Exempt (BAB1) classification from salary plan and grade level B85 1923 ($9,099 - $11,060) to salary plan and grade level B85-1923 ($9,509 - $11,558) in the Agriculture, Weights and Measures Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an additional annual General Fund cost of approximately $8,000. BACKGROUND: The Agriculture, Weights and Measures Department has had difficulty recruiting for the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures position since it has been vacated. The person whom previously held the position left the County for a higher paying salary and position. A salary study concluded the current salary was 4.5% below the mean. Since this position requires two State licenses, it has been difficult to attract competitive candidates with the current salary. The most recent recruitment didn't yield a large pool of candidates, and thus increasing the salary would make Contra Costa's Agricultural Department more competitive with other counties. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matt Slattengren, (925) 608-6600 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Matt Slattengren C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren, Ag Commissioner/Weights & Measures Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the salary for the classification of Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures-Exempt CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures position will remain vacant and the workload for the Agricultural Commissioner will be negatively impacted. Additionally, if unapproved, it will impact the Department's ability to recruit and retain quality candidates AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AG-25853 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25853 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25853 DATE 11/17/2021 Department No./ Department Agriculture Budget Unit No. 0335 Org No. 3300 Agency No. 33 Action Requested: Reallocat e the salary of the unrepresented and exempt classification of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures (BAB1) from salary plan and grade level B85 1923 ($9,099.47 - $11,060.46) to salary plan and grade level B85-1923 ($9,508.95 - $11,558.19). Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $8,000.00 Net County Cost $8,000.00 Total this FY $2,000.00 N.C.C. this FY $2,000.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Matthew Slattengren ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SS for Paul Reyes 12/3/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 3/21/2022 Reallocat e the salary of the unrepresented and exempt classification of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures (BAB1) from salary plan and gr ade level B85 1923 ($9,099.47 - $11,060.46) to salary plan and grade level B85-1923 ($9508.947 - $11558.185). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Carol Berger 3/22/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Paul Reyes Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: Complete a Salary Study for the Position Assistant Agricutural Commissioner P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/22/2022 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25932 to cancel one (1) vacant Clerical Supervisor (JWHF) position #14950 at salary plan and grade K6X-1290 ($4,848 - $6,191), and add one (1) Account Clerk Supervisor (JDHD) position at salary plan and grade K6X-1340 ($5,094 - $6,505) in the Finance division of the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost increase of approximately $5,734, with pension costs of $1,462 already included. The increased salary and benefit cost will be fully funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: The majority (95%) of staff in the Patient Accounting unit of the Health Services department are Account Clerks, who have been receiving supervision from a Clerical Supervisor -- due to the nature of the work, Health Services is requesting to add an Account Clerk Supervisor position to replace the vacant Clerical Supervisor position in overseeing the day-to-day work of the Account Clerks. This would also provide potential growth opportunity for our Account Clerk staff, encouraging career progression and retention within the department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, this unit will not have a supervisor with the knowledge and background needed to appropriately support the functions of the Patient Accounting Unit. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: JR Ang, (925) 313-6506 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jo-Anne Linares, Kathi Caudel, Viviana Garcia, JR Ang, Lauren Ludwig C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel One Clerical Supervisor Position and Add One Account Clerk Supervisor in the Health Services Department AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25932 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25932 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25932 DATE 1/1/2022 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6569 Agenc y No. A18 Action Requested: Cancel one (1) vacant Clerical Supervisor position #14950 and add one Account Clerk Supervisor position in the Finance division of the Health Services department. (Represented) Proposed Effective Date: 4/26/2022 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $5,733.82 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $955.64 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Lauren Ludwig ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Kennard for 4/18/2022 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/19/2022 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County A dministrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Greg Baer to the position of Director of Airports - Exempt (B85-2215) at Step 2 of the salary range ($12,757/$153,090), effective May 2, 2022, including all benefits provided in the current Management Resolution applicable to the position of the Director of Airports- Exempt, in addition to vacation accruals starting at the rate of five (5) weeks per year. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated annual County cost for the Director of Airports – Exempt position is $220,767 of which $33,801 are pension costs. The estimated cost for the remaining fiscal year 2021/2022 is $36,794, of which $5,633 are pension costs based on a start date of May 2, 2022. All costs are budgeted in the Airports Division of the Public Works Department. BACKGROUND: The previous incumbent Director of Airports - Exempt retired from his position effective November 6, 2021. The County contracted ADK Consulting and Executive Search (ADK) to conduct the recruitment to fill this critical vacancy. ADK was specifically selected for their APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Adrienne Todd (925) 313-2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Greg Baer to the position of Director of Airports - Exempt BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) specialization in talent searches within the airport industry. Not only did outreach efforts include traditional recruitment brochures, but also electronic recruiting ads placed on specifically targeted websites and direct sourcing efforts to recruit the best qualified candidates. Recruitment efforts resulted in twelve (12) applications for further consideration. Applications were screened and six (6) candidates were invited to participate in the final interviews that took place in early March 2022. The interview panel was composed of key stakeholders from the Public Works Department, the Aviation Advisory Committee and County Administration. Based on the recommendations of the review panel and of the County Administrator, Greg Baer was selected for the position of Director of Airports – Exempt. Mr. Baer holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Sonoma State University, a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Aviation, with an option in Management, a Business Minor from San Jose State University and a Certificate in Construction Management from UC Davis. Since November 2016, Mr. Baer has served in multiple capacities with Napa County, with his most recent assignment as Airport Manager beginning May 2018. In addition to overall responsibility for airport operations, he was also responsible for supervising and directing $18 million in Capital Improvement projects. Mr. Baer is an active member of both the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Southwest Chapter of the American Association of Airport Executives (SWAAAE). As a successful applicant, Mr. Baer is qualified to serve as the County’s Director of Airports-Exempt. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Director of Airports-Exempt position will remain vacant, leaving a critical management vacancy within the Airports Division of the Public Works Department. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Agreement #28-882-6 with Sutter Bay Hospitals, including indemnification, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the County’s Coordinated Outreach, Referral and Engagement (C.O.R.E.) program to provide homeless outreach services for the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant agreement will result in an amount of $100,000 for the County’s C.O.R.E. program for homeless outreach. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Concord Shelter in conjunction with the County’s C.O.R.E. program is part of a comprehensive strategy to provide outreach and housing and services to the homeless in Contra Costa County. The C.O.R.E. program will dedicate three beds within the Concord Shelter for Sutter Bay Hospital patients who are homeless, identified to be too low acuity to access the Respite Shelter program, capable of self-care and are appropriate for placement in regular shelter programs. These homeless residents are allowed stay up to 120 days. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Grant Agreement #28-882-5 with Sutter Bay Hospitals in an amount not to exceed $75,000 to provide funding to support the County’s C.O.R.E. program to provide homeless outreach services for homeless residents for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Grant Agreement #28-882-6 will allow the County to receive funds for the County’s C.O.R.E. program through December 31, 2022. The County is agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the contractor for claims arising out of the County’s performance under this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this grant agreement is not approved, the County will not receive funding to support homeless residents being discharged from Sutter Bay Hospitals in Concord. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Christy Saxton, 925-608-6700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Agreement #28-882-6 from Sutter Bay Hospitals ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Children and Family Services Bureau, to accept a noncompetitive allocation in the amount of $1,079,500 from the California Department of Social Services for the Bringing Families Home (BFH) Program over two years from the date of grant award through June 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% State Funding. County to receive up to $1,079,500 from the California Department of Social Services in Fiscal Years 2022-2024 to fund the BFH Program over a two-year period. (No required match). BACKGROUND: The Bringing Families Home (BFH) Program provides housing supports to families receiving child welfare services who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness or living in a situation that cannot accommodate the child or multiple children in the home. These housing supports increase family reunification and preventing foster care placement. The Budget Act of 2021 (Senate Bill 129, Chapter 69, Statutes of 2021) appropriated a total of $92.5 million in General Funds for BFH for Fiscal Year 2021, available for expenditure July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. In February 2022, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) issued APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Hakes (925) 608- 4845 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marla Stuart, Employment and Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Bringing Families Homes Program Allocation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) an All County Welfare Directors Letter announcing the FY 2021-2022 noncompetitive allocation for all fifty-eight (58) counties and one (1) continuing tribe in the amount of $82.875 million based on a local need methodology. Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) Children & Family Services (CFS) Bureau has been allocated $1,079,500. Funds will be used to help eligible families receiving child welfare services to secure and maintain housing through BFH, including, but not limited to, Rapid Rehousing, Supportive Housing, Housing Navigation and Targeted Prevention Services. EHSD CFS will coordinate with Contra Costa County Health, Housing, and Homeless Services (H3) as the local Continuum of Care to help implement the program and collaborate with the greater homelessness response system and partners to link families to necessary services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, the County will face an increased number of children brought into foster care due to inadequate and/or lack of housing and homeless prevention services for biological families. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Funding resulting from this grant will support three of the five community outcomes established in the Children’s Report Card: 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) “Families that are Economically Self Sufficient”; and 4) “Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing”. This is accomplished by providing safe housing and housing supports to assist families and their children. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a grant amendment with the California Secretary of State to extend the term from June 30, 2022 through December 31, 2024 with no change to the reimbursement limit of $6,038,436 for the purchase of replacement voting systems and technology. FISCAL IMPACT: Under the contract, the State matches the County's spending 3:1 on voting systems and technology replacement. BACKGROUND: In 2018, State funding became available for counties to replace voting systems and technology. In 2019, the County entered into a grant agreement with the State for such monies in the amount of $3,647,000 with an expiration date of June 30, 2021. In 2020, the County entered into a grant amendment with the State that increased the grant amount to $6,038,436 and extended the expiration date to June 30, 2022. Under the proposed contract amendment, the grant agreement term would be extended through December 31, 2024 with no change to the reimbursement limit. Monies provided to the County by the State under the grant agreement may be used by the County both retroactively for reimbursement of allowable costs and for reimbursement of future purchases of voting equipment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the County chose not to execute the grant contract, the County will not be reimbursed with State funds for 75% of any voting system and equipment purchases made during the term extension period. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Helen Nolan, 925-335-7808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Contract with the Secretary of State RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $195,000 from the City of Antioch for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to replace the Antioch Library's heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC )system, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No County match. BACKGROUND: The CDBG program is funded by the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The primary objective of this program is to help develop viable urban communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity, principally for low and moderate income persons. The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County, on behalf of all the other cities and the county unincorporated area (the Urban County), joined to form the Contra Costa HOME and CDBG Consortium. Together these jurisdictions cover all of Contra Costa County and have a joint, integrated funding application for these funds. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Antioch Library's HVAC system will not be replaced. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-608-7701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Library Grant in the amount of $195,000 from the City of Antioch RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, on behalf of the Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls, to accept funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in the amount of $25,000 for the Women’s Recovery Response Grant to provide support services to women and girls through enhanced strategic communications efforts for the period April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% state funding by the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls (CCCWG) was formed to educate the community and advise the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on issues relating to the changing social and economic conditions of women in the County, with particular emphasis on the economically disadvantaged. The Commission's mission is to improve the economic status, social welfare, and overall quality of life for women in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 655-2057 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Receive Funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls Women’s Recovery Response Grant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On February 1, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the CCCWG to apply for the Women’s Recovery Response Grant from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls (CCSWG) (C. 47 ). On March 15, 2022, CCSWG notified CCCWG that the Contra Costa Commission has been selected for funding in the amount of $25,000 as part of the Women’s Recovery Response Grant Program under the Communications Funding Category. The grant funding will support CCCWG’s strategic communications efforts through the development and implementation of a comprehensive communication plan. In order to connect more authentically with the community, CCCWG will utilize multiple levels of engagement with the public, both digitally and via print media. By having a stronger social and traditional media presence, the CCCWG will engage more effectively with the community and educate and inform women and girls of resources and support services available to them throughout the County. The funding will be deposited into the County Treasury and administered through Budget Unit 0135, org. 1151. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls will not receive California State Women’s Recovery Response Grant funding, reducing local services to women and girls who have been disproportionately affected economically by the ongoing pandemic. ATTACHMENTS CCSWG Grant Award Letter 925 L Street, Suite 345 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 651-5405 • www.women.ca.gov March 15, 2022 Faye Maloney Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls 1025 Escobar Street Martinez, CA 94553 VIA ELECTRONIC COPY Congratulations! Contra Costa Commission for Women and Girls of this financial support is subject to your agreement to: 1. Use the funds only as specified in your submitted proposal. 2. Submit an expenditure report at the end of the grant award that documents what the funding was spent on and identify whether there was any funding not utilized. 3. Maintain all supporting documentation (including, but not limited to executed contracts, invoices, receipts, and accounting records) for a minimum of three (3) fiscal years to document and account for all funding received. 4. Allow CCSWG, their designee, or any legally authorized state audit official access to review or audit all applicable records to verify expenditures and activities. 5. Provide written acknowledgment of receipt of funds within 15-days of receipt of funds. 6. Repay any portion of the funds not used for the specified purposes within 15-days after submittal of your final progress report with expenditure statement. Remit payment to California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls at 925 L Street, Suite 345, Sacramento, CA 95814. 7. Refrain from using funds for any purpose prohibited by law. 8. Cooperate with any efforts of CCSWG, or their designee, to publicize the funding award. 9. Comply with all reasonable requests for information about program activities and/or expenditures. 10. Submit regular progress reports and a final assessment to California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls outlining all related outcomes resulting from the use of funding provided according to the provided deadlines. All final reports and data will also need to be sent at the conclusion of the project. All work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, videos, photographs, data, papers, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, technical information, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Grant Agreement shall be and remain available for use by the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls for any purpose without restriction or limitation. Grantee agrees and does hereby grant to and vest in the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls the entire right, title and interest in and to all the copyright material first produced and composed in course of or pursuant to the performance of grantee and waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. All published materials resulting from this grant opportunity are to include the logo of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and the language "This project was made possible by a grant from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. 925 L Street, Suite 345 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 651-5405 • www.women.ca.gov If your organization agrees to these terms, please have an authorized representative sign and return one copy of this letter via email to: Grants@women.ca.gov. The award amount will not be processed for payment until a signed letter is received and fully executed by CCSWG. Your signed letter accepting all the terms shall serve as the invoice for the award amount. Sincerely, Holly Martinez Executive Director California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls I certify that the organization named above accepts the terms outlined in this letter and I am authorized to legally bind the organization to these requirements: __________________________ Remittance Address: Legal Applicant Printed Name __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Title __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Date Signature Holly Martinez CCSWG Printed Name Executive Director Title Date Signature For Official Use Only Amt Supplier ID BU Approp Ref Fund ENY Acct Rep. Struct. $ 25,000.00 8820 601 0001 2021 5432000 88200001 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Award Agreement #28-990 with Richmond Community Foundation, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $75,000, for the Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement (CORE) program to provide homeless outreach services to homeless individuals with behavioral health needs in Richmond, for the period from April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant award agreement will result in payment to the County of up to $75,000 from the Richmond Community Foundation. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: This grant award agreement will provide much needed funds for the CORE program, which work collaboratively in small teams to engage and stabilize individuals experiencing homelessness. The CORE program's approach is to build rapport, identify appropriate resources, and link individuals experiencing homelessness to housing programs that can end their housing crisis permanently. Funding will support a CORE Social Worker position, responsible for targeted street outreach and linkage services to individuals experiencing homelessness and working collaboratively with Healthcare for the Homeless, Behavioral Health Services (BHS), Coordinated Entry Service (CES) providers, and other community-based programs providing services in the County. Approval of Grant Award Agreement #28-990 will allow the County to receive funds for providng CORE outreach services in Richmond for the period April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this grant award agreement is not approved, the County will not receive funding four outreach CORE team services that support homeless individuals with behavioral health needs in Richmond. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Christy Saxton, 925-608-6700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award Agreement #28-990 with Richmond Community Foundation RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #29-533-5 (State #17-94578, A01) with the Department of Health Care Services, to update terms and conditions to comply with federal regulations as determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for continuation mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible residents of Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will allow the County to be paid for continuation mental health services in accordance with Chapter 3, Part 2, Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code along with Sections 5600, 5750, 5650 and Government Code Sections 11138, 14705, and 14718 for Medi-Cal eligible clients. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-533-4 with the Department of Health Care Services for the provision of Managed Mental Health Care for Medi-Cal eligible residents of Contra Costa County through June 30, 2022, which included agreeing to indemnify and hold the State harmless for claims arising out of the County’s performance under the Agreement. The County has been contracting with the State for these services since 2012. The goal of the managed care project is to provide covered mental health services, including medication support, day treatment intensive, day rehabilitation, crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, adult residential treatment, crisis residential, psychiatric health facility and targeted case management services. Covered mental health services include psychiatric inpatient treatment and early periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) supplemental specialty mental health services. In order to comply with federal regulations as determine by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the State is amending the prior contract to update terms and conditions with no change in the amount payable to the County or term through June 30, 2022. Approval of Standard Agreement #29-533-5 will allow the County to continue to receive funds to support the Managed Mental Health Care Project through June 30, 2022 to ensure continuity of specialty mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible residents in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #29-533-5 with the Department of Health Care Services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not be able to continue providing managed mental health care services to Medi-Cal eligible residents of Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Standard Agreement #29-611-40 (State #GA21-SBPCR-EXT-1000768) with the State Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) to pay the County an amount up to $375,000, for continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from June 30, 2022 through August 29, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in state funding of up to $375,000 over a three year period. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: Since 1978, the Board of Supervisors has approved agreements with the State to provide funds for the County's Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) is authorized by the Song-Brown Health Care Workforce Training Action, Section 128225 to issue grants for the purpose of supporting programs that train family and primary care physicians, osteopathic family physicians, primary care physician’s assistances, registered nurses and primary nurse practitioners to provide needed services in areas of unmet need with the State. The County has been contracting with OSHPD for the Family Practice Residency Program services since 1978. On August 4, 2021, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) changed its name to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI). Approval of Standard Agreement #29-611-40 will allow continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, including training for an additional family practice resident for a three-year term. This agreement includes a provision requiring the County to indemnify and hold harmless the State for any and all claims arising out of performance of the agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not receive funding to continue providing family medicine training in the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #29-611-40 with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Agreement #28-987 with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, including indemnification, to pay the County in an amount not to exceed $238,697 to allow the County to expand the Asthma Mitigation Project in Contra Costa County, for the period from April 1, 2022 though April 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant agreement will result in grant funding of up to $238,697 for expansion of the Asthma Mitigation Project. (No County match is required) BACKGROUND: The goal of the Bay Area Healthy Homes Initiative seeks to build on and expand the Asthma Mitigation Project in Contra Costa, which is run by Contra Costa Public Health in partnership with the Association for Energy Affordability. The Initiative seeks to improve health outcomes for Contra Costa County residents living in communities disproportionality impacted by air pollution by integrating multiple interventions that address cumulative air pollution burden. Project partners will collaborate in the implementation of core area of the program including home asthma education and trigger assessments, energy efficiency assessments, provision of consumer supplies, equipment, and services, home retrofits, and indoor air monitor. Anticipated outcomes include improved indoor air quality, decreased energy usage, reduced greenhouse gas emission, and improved health outcomes in participant’s households. Approval of Grant Agreement #28-987, will allow the County to receive up to $238,697, to manage the Project in Contra Costa County, through April 30, 2024. The County is agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the contractor for claims arising out of the County’s performance under this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will be unable to implement the Green and Healthy Homes Program and the health and economic benefits of the proposed work will not occur. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. Expected program outcomes include reducing the frequency of emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and missed days of school due to asthma exacerbation. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ori Tzvieli, M.D., 925-608-5267 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #28-987 with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-401-3 with FirstWatch Solutions, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $225,000, to provide data link services for the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) web-based data surveillance systems, for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $225,000 over a 3 year period and will be funded 100% by County Service Area (CSA) EM-1, Measure H funds. BACKGROUND: In January 2020, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #23-401-2, with FirstWatch Solutions, Inc., for the installation and configuration of the data link for the EMS web-based data surveillance systems including development and interface testing, training, hosting and maintenance services, for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-401-3 will allow the contractor to continue to maintain and support all systems purchased by the County, through December 31, 2024. This request to the Board is delayed due to additional time needed by the department to negotiate changes to the service plan. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the dispatch, pre-hospital and hospital data will not be tracked in the County’s EMS surveillance systems and the County would not meet the requirements of the California’s Whole Person Initiative. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marshall Bennet., 925-608-5454 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-401-3 with FirstWatch Solutions, Inc. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Otis Elevator Company, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide on-call elevator maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance and emergency repairs to all County elevators. Elevator maintenance and repairs are performed by outside Contractors. The existing contracts for elevator services are set to expire May 31, 2022. Otis Elevator Company performs maintenance, scheduled repairs, emergency repairs, component upgrades and as-needed modernization to elevators. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for elevator maintenance and repair services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-490, Otis Elevator Company, was one of two contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Otis Elevator Company. The contract will have a limit of $1,000,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Otis Elevator Company will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Otis Elevator Company, a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Otis Elevator Company, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, elevator services with Otis Elevator Company will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with TK Elevator Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 to provide on-call elevator maintenance and repair services at various County buildings, for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2025, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance and emergency repairs to all County elevators. Elevator maintenance and repairs are performed by outside Contractors. The existing contracts for elevator services are set to expire May 31, 2022. TK Elevator Corporation performs maintenance, scheduled repairs, emergency repairs, component upgrades and as-needed modernization to elevators. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County Facilities. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for elevator maintenance and repair services. Originally bid on Bidsync #2107-490, TK Elevator Corporation, was one of two contractors awarded for this contract. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to execute a contract with TK Elevator Corporation. The contract will have a limit of $1,300,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with TK Elevator Corporation, a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in the contract. TK Elevator Corporation will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this contract. The contract will be used on an as-needed basis, with no minimum amount that must be spent. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with TK Elevator Corporation, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, elevator services with TK Elevator Corporation will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-140-6 with East Bay Audiologists, a Professional Corporation, effective May 1, 2022, to amend Contract #26-140-5, to increase the payment limit by $290,000, from $1,180,000 to a new payment limit of $1,470,000, with no change in the original term of September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in additional expenditures of up to $290,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. The County has been contracting with East Bay Audiologists since September 2015 for audiology evaluation and hearing evaluations services. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-140-5 with East Bay Audiologists, A Professional Corporation, in an amount of $1,180,000 for the provision of audiology services including hearing evaluations, hearing aid evaluations, fitting, dispensing and procurement of hearing aids and supplies at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-140-6 will allow the contractor to provide additional audiology evaluation services through August 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients will not receive audiology services from this contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-140-6 with East Bay Audiologists, a Professional Corporation RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Human Resources Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with SmartERP Solutions, Inc., to extend the term from April 30, 2022 through June 30, 2024 and increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000 for the implementation,license and support of the SmartERP software. FISCAL IMPACT: The administrative cost of this contract extension for the annual fee is funded through the Benefits Administrative Fee which is charged out to departments. BACKGROUND: The Human Resources Department is continually looking for ways to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective for County departments and employees. One of these priorities is the creation of a centralized onboarding experience with foundational information pertinent to all new hires as they begin working for Contra Costa County. In addition to these core materials, departments with specific requirements will be able to add customized content. This will allow departments to provide a convenient and consistent process for new hire onboarding. In addition, improvement is needed in the merit step review process. Currently, each department runs a report to obtain a list of employees scheduled for merit step review, which is then forwarded to the appropriate supervisor or manager to approve for each eligible employee. The goal is to create an automated monthly process where managers/supervisors will receive an email listing all employees eligible for merit step review which will be processed as a batch rather than individually. This will allow timely merit reviews and mitigate payroll errors due to late review and approval. Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) staff will work with Smart ERP Solutions on these two improvement projects as well as gaining the knowledge and skills necessary to pursue future projects independently. Smart ERP Solutions will provide professional services to the County for implementation of the Smart Toolkits solution software which includes HR Automation functionality for Smart Onboarding and the ability to build a workflow and approval path for merit increases. Smart ERP Solutions will add software into the County’s PeopleSoft Development environment in order to automate HR forms for Smart Onboarding and merit increases including: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Salma Sadiq, (925) 655-2176 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ann Elliott, Human Resources Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract extension with SmartERP Solutions, Inc. to provide County with consulting services for HR Automation functionality BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Smart Toolkit solutions definition, design, mockup and review; Configuration, development and system testing; Final Migration and Deployment support; Technical Training; and Smart ERP post production support as needed Smart ERP will work with the County HRIS staff to implement and enhance the performance of the PeopleSoft system to enable this HR Automation functionality for increased efficiency countywide. The contract with Smart ERP includes a limitation of liability provision that limits Contractor’s liability to the County to the amount paid under the contract unless the liability is a result of Smart ERP’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. This contract amendment to extend the contract will allow Smart ERP to complete the implementation and support of the employee onboarding software including the technical training and annual fee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract extension is not approved, the County will be unable to access the expertise and support of SmartERP Solutions to assist the County in implementing automated solutions to improve Human Resources processes for Onboarding and Merit increases. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with General Datatech, L.P. not to exceed $1,115,000 for the renewal of CrowdStrike Falcon Complete, a managed endpoint protection service, for the period of March 22, 2022 through March 21, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for service is included in the Department of Information Technology's Security budget and will cover all County departments except the Health Services Department. (100% Charges to Users) BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2021, the Board approved a software and services agreement with CrowdStrike, Inc. and a purchase order with General Datatech, L.P. for the purchase and implementation of CrowdStrike Falcon Complete software. This anti-virus protection software provides 24x7 monitoring, detection and response activities to detect and prevent account breaches. The software was deployed in 2021 and has been working very effectively at identifying and mitigating potential cyber incidences. The Department of Information Technology recommends renewing this managed endpoint protection software. The services being purchased are governed by the Crowdstrike Terms and Conditions, dated March 19, 2021, between the County and Crowdstrike. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nathan Wiebe 925-500-3393 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nancy Zandonella, Nancy Zandonella C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, a purchase order with General Datatech, L.P. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County’s infrastructure will be at risk of a possible breach. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-535-7 with R.E.A.C.H. Project, a non-profit corporation, effective January 1, 2022, to amend Contract #74-535-6, to increase the payment limit by $40,000, from $200,000 to a new payment limit of $240,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in additional annual expenditures of up to $40,000 and will be funded 100% CalWORKS Alcohol and Other Drugs Services revenues. BACKGROUND: The County has been contracting with R.E.A.C.H. Project, since January 2017 to provide mental health services and substance abuse prevention treatment services to Medi-Cal eligible County residents. In August 2021, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-535-6 with R.E.A.C.H. Project, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for the provision of mental health services and substance abuse prevention treatment services to Medi-Cal eligible County residents, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The delay with brining this amendment request to the Board is due to the resurgence of COVID-19 earlier in the year, which has created service interruptions, productivity declines and cash flow issues with the community based behavioral health service providers. Approval of this amendment allows the need to maintain a viable service delivery network to ensure access to needed behavioral health services with the County. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-535-7 will allow the contractor to provide additional mental health services and substance abuse prevention treatment services, through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Medi-Cal eligible County residents will not have access to this contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-535-7 with R.E.A.C.H. Project CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: (CONT'D) CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Alcohol and Drug Abuse prevention program supports the Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes 4 & 5 by providing individual, group, and family counseling; substance abuse education; rehabilitation support services; and substance abuse prevention services. Expected outcomes include increased knowledge about the impact of addiction; decreased use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; increased use of community-based resources; and increased school and community support for youth and parents in recovery. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-467 with Danville Long-Term Care, Inc. (dba Danville Post-Acute Rehab), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to provide skilled nursing facility (SNF) services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members and County recipients, for the period from May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $600,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized SNF health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. Members are released from the hospital to recover at an SNF until they are well enough to be sent home. These services include, but are not limited to: twenty-four (24) hour medical care, social service and case management coordination, wound care, respiratory therapy, nasogastric and gastric tube feeding, physical and speech therapy services. This contractor is new to the CCHP Provider Network. Under new Contract #77-467, the contractor will provide SNF services for CCHP members and County recipients for the period May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized SNF health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Noel Garcia, Marcy Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-467 with Danville Long-Term Care, Inc. (dba Danville Post-Acute Rehab) RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-037-32 with Contra Costa ARC, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $266,152, to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment, for the period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $266,152 and will be funded 100% by Substance Abuse Mental Health Works (SAMWORKS) revenues. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mental health children’s services to CalWORKs participants in the SAMWORKS program. The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Contra Costa ARC, since January 2000 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children. This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. On July 13, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-037-31 with Contra Costa ARC in an amount of $266,152, for the provision of mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Approval of Contract #74-037-32 allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CalWORKs recipients will not have sufficient access to children’s mental health services as needed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-037-32 with Contra Costa ARC RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Gigi Walker d/b/a Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair, to extend the term from May 31, 2022 to May 31, 2023, to provide on-call collision and auto body repair services to County vehicles, with no change to the payment limit of $600,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action as it is only to extend the term of the contract. The contract is funded through Public Works Fleet Internal Service Fund. BACKGROUND: Public Works Fleet Services maintains all County vehicles. Part of this maintenance is vehicle collision damage repair and painting. Various reasons exist for vehicle body repair and painting, from damage caused by collisions to deterioration. Gigi Walker d/b/a Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair can do auto collision repairs, paint and mechanical repairs. The contract with Gigi Walker d/b/a APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joe Yee, (925) 313-2104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Gigi Walker d/b/a Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair is due to expire May 31, 2022. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to extend this contract to May 31, 2023, to ensure the County has access to the contractor's services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, auto body and repair services with Gigi Walker d/b/a Walker’s Auto Body & Fleet Repair, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000, for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022, through April 11, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Department User Fees. Funds for these services will be charged to project accounts. BACKGROUND: With the number of projects anticipated in the coming years, the Public Works Real Estate Division is in need of supplemental project management and right of way services in connection with those projects. Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., is qualified to perform those services when needed and requested by the County. Under a standard services contract with the County, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., will perform project management and right of way services when and to the extent requested by the County. The County will pay Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., hourly, at rates that APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jessica Dillingham, 925. 957-2453 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Auditor Controller , County Clerk Recorder, Wiley Osborn, PW Information Technology, Jon Suemnick C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a contract with Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., for On-Call Right of Way Services, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) range from $75.00 to $400.00, depending on the service for all services performed under the Contract. Considering the County’s need for these specialized services, and the contractor’s particular qualifications to provide these services, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board approval, these services would not be provided by this contractor, which could result in projects being delayed. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #76-662-4 with FirstLocum, Inc. (dba Directshifts), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000, to provide temporary physician services and recruitment services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $1,700,000 and will be funded as budgeted by the Department in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I allocations. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers have an obligation to provide medical staffing services to patients. Therefore, the County contracts with temporary help firms to ensure patient care is provided during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required. The County has been using the contractor’s temporary staffing services since July 1, 2019. On August 4, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-662-1 with FirstLocum, Inc. (dba Directshifts), in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 to provide temporary physician services for coverage of employee sick leaves, vacations and workers compensation leaves, at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period July 22, 2019 through July 31, 2020. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #76-662-2 with no increase in the payment limit of $1,400,000, to provide additional classifications of temporary physician services and recruiting services for coverage during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required, with no change in the contract term of August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021. Also, on June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #76-662-3 to increase the payment limit of $1,400,000 by $200,000 for a new payment limit of $1,600,000 with no change in the contract term of August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021 to provide additional temporary physician services and recruiting services for coverage during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required, with no change in the contract term of August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Kathleen Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-662-4 with FirstLocum, Inc. (dba Directshifts) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 9, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved a one-time payment for services requested by the Division and provided by the Contractor in the amount of $150,569.30. The Division requested temporary specialty locum tenens physician services during the contract period August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021 that exceeded the contract payment limit of $1,600,000. The total contract expenditures of $1,750,569.30 exceed the payment limit by $150,569.30. Utilization was higher than originally anticipated and additional service volume was shifted to the contractor from a former temporary physician provider. Approval of Contract #76-662-4 will allow the contractor to continue providing temporary physician staffing services and recruitment services through July 31, 2022. The contract request to the Board was delayed due to the contractor not providing all of the required documents to the department in a timely manner. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s temporary physician staffing services. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): RATIFY the execution of a consulting services agreement, dated April 14, 2021, with Lance, Soll, & Lunghard LLP by the County Auditor-Controller, or designee, including modified indemnification, for technical assistance with the automation of the Contra Costa County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) in an amount not to exceed $81,475. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: On April 14, 2021, the Auditor-Controller engaged the services of Lance Soll & Lunghard LLP to provide customized CaseWare ACFR Template implementation, training and support for the implementation and publication of the 2021 ACFR. The customization includes automated formatting of the document, coding and assistance with the standard content. The consulting services agreement contains a provision whereby the County agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Lance, Soll, & Lunghard LLP for any claims relating to misrepresentation, concealment or withholding of information by County management. The agreement contains additional provisions whereby the liability of Lance, Soll, & Lunghard LLP for any claims or costs is limited and any claim relating to services rendered under the agreement must be brought within one year. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Robert Campbell 925-608-9300 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Ratify the Execution of a Consulting Agreement with Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The agreement will not be approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with County policy. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Dokken Engineering, in an amount not to exceed $350,000, for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022, through April 11, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Department User Fees. Funds for these services will be charged to project accounts. BACKGROUND: With the number of projects anticipated in the coming years, the Public Works Real Estate Division is in need of supplemental project management and right of way services in connection with those projects. Dokken Engineering is qualified to perform those services when needed and requested by the County. Under a standard services contract with the County, Dokken Engineering will perform project management and right of way services when and to the extent requested by the County. The County will pay Dokken Engineering hourly, at rates that range from $70.00 to $440.00 depending on the service, for all services performed under the Contract. Considering the County’s need for these specialized services, and the contractor’s particular qualifications to provide these services, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jessica Dillingham, 925. 957-2453 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Auditor Controller , County Clerk Recorder, Wiley Osborn, PW Information Technology, Jon Suemnick C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a contract with Dokken Engineering for On-Call Right of Way Services, Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board approval, these services would not be provided by this contractor, which could result in projects being delayed. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mark Watts Advocacy LLC, in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide legislative advocacy and monitoring services for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Local Road Funds BACKGROUND: Mark Watts Advocacy is the County’s current legislative advocate in Sacramento for transportation related matters. He has been performing this service since 2005 and has developed strong relationships with state legislators and staff, as well as an in depth knowledge of the internal workings of state government. Watts also provides similar services to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) and helps coordinate our legislative activities with those of the Authority. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that Mark Watts Advocacy continue to be retained for legislative monitoring and advocacy for the 2022-2026 calendar years. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nancy Wein, 925.313.2275 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Mark Watts Advocacy LLC for legislative advocacy and monitoring services, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The firm’s services to the County include, but are not limited to, the following: -Providing State legislative monitoring and advocacy in the areas of growth management, infrastructure finance, transportation finance, planning and zoning (including transportation planning), public works contracting, and associated administrative issues -Assisting with financing and implementation of important transportation projects in Contra Costa County. -Assisting in planning for transportation, land use, and other related improvements to communities in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County -Assisting in developing a comprehensive transportation oriented program, including legislative liaison work with other political jurisdictions in the Bay Area as appropriate. Assisting in coordinating with the California Department of Transportation, as required, for the approval of County' s local assistance grant requests and project processing. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the contract is not approved, Public Works will not have legislative monitoring and advocacy in Sacramento for the 2022-2026 calendar years and will be left at a great disadvantage in the areas of growth management, infrastructure finance, transportation finance, planning and zoning (including transportation planning), public works contracting, community development, energy restructuring and associated administrative issues related to state legislative, executive and regulatory agencies. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Monument Row, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000, for on-call project management and right of way services for the period April 12, 2022, through April 11, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Department User Fees. Funds for these services will be charged to project accounts. BACKGROUND: With the number of projects anticipated in the coming years, the Public Works Real Estate Division is in need of supplemental project management and right of way services in connection with those projects. Monument Row, Inc., is qualified to perform those services when needed and requested by the County. Under a standard services contract with the County, Monument Row, Inc., will perform project management and right of way services when and to the extent requested by the County. The County will pay Monument Row, Inc., hourly, at rates that range from $70 to $250.00 depending on the service, for all services performed under the Contract. Considering the County’s need for these specialized services, and the contractor’s particular qualifications to provide these services, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jessica Dillingham, 925. 957-2453 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Auditor Controller , County Clerk Recorder, Wiley Osborn, PW Information Technology, Jon Suemnick, Flood Control C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a contract with Monument Row, Inc., for On-Call Right of Way Services, Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board approval, these services would not be provided by this contractor, which could result in projects being delayed. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), a Purchase Order with R-Computer, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $213,367.40 for the purchase of Dell UltraSharp 38” curved monitors and the necessary hardware for mounting for the period April 15, 2022 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This purchase will be fully funded by allocations from the Federal Government at 66% and State of California at 34%. There is zero cost to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: DCSS staff rely on several applications to do basic case work. The Department has 13 employees currently using and testing the curved monitors with great success. The staff who have used the monitors have reported that the larger contiguous screens have made it easier to perform their daily duties and have reported less eye and neck strain. Dell curved monitors include Dell Display Manager Easy Arrange which will allow staff to easily tile multiple applications across APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jessica Shepard, 925-313-4454 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Lori Cruz, Child Support Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Purchase Order with R-Computer Inc. for Dell UltraSharp 38” Curved Monitors BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the screen. This improves efficiency and reduces human error as staff will no longer have to tab between applications. The Dell curved monitors provide a wider field of view and greater zoom options for a more comfortable view that should reduce ergonomic concerns moving forward. These monitors are EnergyStar and TCO Certified. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the department will not be able to improve efficiency, reduce the risk of human error or provide a more ergonomic workstation to our staff. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Department of Child Support Services supports three of the five community outcomes established in the Contra Costa County Children’s Report Card: (3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient, (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing, and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-698-2 with CitiGuard Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $270,000, to provide security guard services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), Contra Costa Health Centers and COVID-19 testing and immunization sites, for the period May 1, 2022 through October 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in expenditures of up to $270,000 and will be funded 100% by American Rescue Plan funding. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Security guard services are needed to respond to unauthorized visitors, prevent theft and vandalism, and help to safeguard equipment and property at CCRMC, Health Centers and COVID-19 testing and immunization sites. On December 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-698 with Citiguard Inc., in an amount not to exceed $550,000 for the provision of security guard services at CCRMC, Contra Costa Health Centers and COVID-19 testing and immunization sites, for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-698-1 to increase the payment limit by $765,000, from $550,000 to a new payment limit of $1,315,000 and extend the termination date from November 30, 2021 to April 30, 2022. Approval of Contract #23-698-2 will allow the contractor to continue to provide security guard services at CCRMC, Contra Costa Health Centers and COVID-19 testing and immunization sites providing services through October 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County facilities requiring security guard services will not have access to this contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-698-2 with CitiGuard Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology: (1) a purchase order with Insight Public Sector, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000; and (2) a Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment Agreement for Microsoft enterprise software applications for the period of May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for this will be paid in three annual installments and be charged to user departments on a per license basis. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Currently many County departments utilize G3 licenses which lack specific security, active directory and business intelligence tools that are now required to secure the County’s intellectual assets and promote collaboration in the Microsoft government cloud. The Department of Information Technology (DoIT,) in collaboration with multiple County departments that APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marc Shorr, 925 608-4071 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nancy Zandonella C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, a purchase order with order with Insight Public Sec BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) require the use of Microsoft G5 licensing to perform and deliver services to the County, were able to align this contract with the County’s goal of getting all departments under one licensing umbrella and leveraging the County’s resources and purchasing strength. Each participating department is charged for its percentage of the licenses and fees, as applicable. DoIT negotiated significant discounts from Microsoft’s authorized reseller, Insight Public Sector, Inc., for the licensing of Microsoft products, such as Office 365. The purchased services included Monthly Subscriptions-Volume Licenses, Software Assurance and Microsoft’s cloud-based hosted services for e-mail and other cloud-based applications such as SharePoint and Azure. Additionally, DoIT worked with Microsoft to participate in the Executive Order President Biden signed on May 12, 2021 to address the growing challenges combating Cybercity threats. Through participation in this program the County will receive one year of the escalated G5 Security suite at no additional cost to the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County will be out of compliance with Microsoft’s licensing agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACKNOWLEDGE that office of the Member 7 Alternate seat on the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) Board of Trustees (Retirement Board) became vacant on April 1, 2022 due to to resignation of Reginald Powell. 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the safety members of the retirement system would elect a safety member from the fire suppression group to fill this office for the three-year term ending June 30, 2023, since the seventh member seat is currently held by a safety member from the sheriff’s group. 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/146 calling and noticing election of CCCERA Board of Trustees Member 7 Alternate (safety member) as recommended by the CCCERA Chief Executive Officer. 3. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Member No. 7 Alternate seat on the CCCERA Board was vacated effective April 1, 2022 with the resignation of Reginald Powell. The safety members of the Association may elect the No. 7 Alternate member as provided in the attached Resolution. Government Code Section 31520.1 (b) and (c) specifies: "(b) The alternate seventh member provided for by this section shall vote as a member of the board only if the second, third, seventh, or eighth member is absent from a board meeting for any cause, or if there is a vacancy with respect to the second, third, seventh, or eighth member, the alternate seventh member shall fill the vacancy until a successor qualifies.  The alternate seventh member shall sit on the board in place of the seventh member if a member of the same service is before the board for determination of his or her retirement. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.655.2056 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Retirement Administrator, CAO (Enea) C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:ELECTION OF RETIREMENT BOARD MEMBER NO. 7 ALTERNATE BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (c) The alternate seventh member shall be entitled to both of the following: (1) The alternate seventh member shall have the same rights, privileges, responsibilities, and access to closed sessions as the second, third, seventh, and eighth member. (2) The alternate seventh member may hold positions on committees of the board independent of the second, third, seventh, or eighth member and may participate in the deliberations of the board or any of its committees to which the alternate seventh member has been appointed whether or not the second, third, seventh, or eighth member is present." Nominations for the elected seats shall be on forms provided by the County Clerk Monday, May 16, 2022, and filed in that office not later than 5 p.m. on June 10, 2022. Election Day is fixed as Tuesday, September 6, 2022. Any Ballot reaching the County Clerk’s Office after 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2022 shall be voided and not counted. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/146 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2022/146 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/146 IN THE MATTER OF CALLING AND NOTICING AN ELECTION OF RETIREMENT BOARD ALTERNATE SEVENTH MEMBER (Government Code section 31523) WHEREAS, the office of the Member No. 7 Alternate of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Retirement Board became vacant on April 1, 2022. The County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937, Government Code section 31523 prescribes that an election be held at the earliest possible date to fill the vacancy; and WHEREAS, the safety members of the retirement system would elect a safety member from the fire suppression group to fill this office for the three-year term ending June 30, 2023, since the seventh member seat is currently held by a safety member from the sheriff’s group. (Government Code Sections 31523(a) and 31470.2.); and WHEREAS, the term of office of Member No. 7 Alternate of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Board will be completed as of June 30, 2023; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: Nominations shall be on forms provided by the County Clerk starting on May 16, 2022 and filed in that office not later than 5 p.m. on June 10, 2022. The Clerk shall have ballots printed with the nominees’ names and with blank spaces for write-in candidates. The Clerk shall have a ballot mailed no later than August 8, 2022 to each member of the appropriate group of the Retirement Association as of June 1, 2022 with a ballot envelope in which to enclose the ballot when voted, imprinted “Retirement Board Ballot” or similar words, together with a “return postage guaranteed” envelope addressed to the County Clerk for mailing the ballot envelope to that office, and with instructions that the ballot shall be marked and returned to the County Clerk before 5 p.m. on election day. (See No. 2 below.) 1. Election Day is hereby fixed as September 6, 2022. Any Ballot reaching the County Clerk’s Office after 5 p.m. on September 6, 2022 shall be voided and not counted. 2. Notice of election and nomination procedure shall be given by the Clerk by publishing a copy of this resolution at least once in the Contra Costa Times, West Contra Costa Times, San Ramon Valley Times, and the Ledger Post Dispatch at least ten days before the last day for receiving nominations. (See No. 1 above.) 3. On September 7, 2022, the County Clerk shall cause all valid ballots to be publicly opened, counted, and tallied by an Election Board, which shall forthwith certify the return to this Board; and this Board shall declare the winners elected, or arrange for a run-off election in case of a tie. 4. If the County Clerk receives no valid nominations for any position, he shall so inform this Board which shall call a new election therefore; and if the Clerk receives only one nomination for any position, he shall so notify this Board which shall direct the Clerk to cast a unanimous ballot in favor of the nominated member as prescribed in Government Code section 31523(c). 5. Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.655.2056 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Retirement Administrator, CAO (Enea) RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian to close the Lafayette County Library early to the public on October 15, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., instead of the regular 5:00 p.m. under normal business hours, to host the annual Night at the Library fundraising event, as requested by the Lafayette Library and Learning Center (LLLC) Foundation. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On Saturday, October 15, 2022, the Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation will host its annual Night at the Library fundraiser. Previously, the LLLCF has had very successful fundraisers within the library to showcase the library to donors and potential donors and to offer "stations" where attendees can see and experience emerging technologies, chat with authors, and gain an appreciation for the lovely space that is the Lafayette Library. The County Librarian is requesting approval to close the Lafayette Library early to the public at 3:00 p.m. instead of the regular closure time of 5:00 p.m., in order to provide the LLLCF time to ready the library for the event. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Lafayette Library will not close early to the public, making it difficult to set up the library for the event. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Walt Beveridge 925-608-7730 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Night at the Library Event - Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. RECEIVE the attached report from Sustainability Commission recommending the County consider establishing standards for low-carbon concrete; 2. REFER the topic of low-carbon concrete standards to the Sustainability Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, the fiscal impact would be costs associated with staff time required to conduct a study on the adoption of low-carbon concrete standards. Such staff costs are already budgeted. BACKGROUND: The responsibilities of the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission include: (1) Provide advice to staff and the Board on successful implementation of the Climate Action Plan, including suggestions on how that work can be performed more efficiently and effectively; (2) Advise the Board on opportunities to realize equity and fairness across the diverse communities of Contra Costa County in sustainability programs that support the Climate Action Plan; and (3) Provide suggestions to staff and the Board on how to better engage Contra Costa County residents and businesses on sustainability issues and implementation of the Climate Action Plan. The Sustainability Commission at its April 26, 2021 meeting received a report from Wes Sullens in his role as Director, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The report focused on USGBC’s green building rating system and opportunities to integrate LEED principles into the County’s Climate Action Plan. The Commission formed a working group to explore ideas and develop recommendations. At the June 28, 2021 meeting of the Sustainability Commission, the Commission unanimously adopted four of the five recommendations brought forward by the working group. Those recommendations were provided to the Board on August 3, 2021, and referred to and considered by the Sustainability Committee at its November 2021 meeting. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jody London (925) 655-2815 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Refer Topic of Low-Carbon Concrete Standards to the Sustainability Committee BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) At its February 28, 2022, meeting, the Sustainability Commission received a report from the working group on its final recommendation regarding the use of low-carbon concrete in County construction projects, as well as in projects approved by the County. The attached report describes that concrete accounts for approximately 8% of the world's manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and that the concrete industry has available low-carbon concrete mixes. The report states that Marin County and several Bay Area cities have adopted building codes that require the use of low-carbon concrete mixes. It describes different strategies that could be used to reduce the amount of carbon embodied, or captured, in concrete. The Sustainability Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to study adoption of low-carbon concrete standards. It further recommends that low-carbon concrete standards be implemented through reach codes that would apply to all new construction in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Staff recommends this proposal be more thoroughly examined by the Sustainability Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to take action on the recommendations in the letter means the Board would be disregarding the advice of the Sustainability Commission. ATTACHMENTS Sustainability Commission Report and Recommendation on Low-Carbon Concrete Standards Low-Carbon Concrete Recommendation to Board of Supervisors Nick Despota and Chris Easter Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission February 2022 The problem Concrete accounts for approximately 8% of the world’s manmade CO2 emissions.1 For comparison, that is more than three times the global carbon emissions of the aviation industry (2.5%).2 But unlike aviation, technologies for mitigating the climate impact of concrete are currently available and economically competitive. The concrete industry has been able to provide low-carbon concrete mixes for more than a decade.3 What’s more, a cursory Internet search reveals that industry and publicly-funded research is sharply focused on bringing lower-carbon and carbon-neutral products to the market as rapidly as possible.4 The opportunity Any local government strongly committed to reducing embodied carbon in our built environment can start by adopting building codes that require the use of low-carbon concrete mixes.5 Marin County and several Bay Area cities have already done so.6 The concrete industry is already responding to growing demand for less carbon-intensive products. In September 2021, an industry -wide coalition, Concrete Action for Climate, formed with the objective of delivering net-zero concrete to the world by 2050.7 Because public agencies buy up to a third of the concrete manufactured annually 8, local governments have the market leverage that can accelerate the research and development of low-carbon concrete. 1 “Environmental Impact of Concrete.” In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 25, 2022 2 “Climate Change and Flying; 2020. “ In Our World in Data. Retrieved January 25, 2022 3 “Low Carbon with Supplementary Cementitious Materials” Central Concrete. 4 One example: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. “Scientists develop alternative cement with low carbon footprint.” Published in Science Daily, April 18, 2021. 5 This recommendation addresses the reduction of embodied carbon (EC) in concrete. A broader approach to reducing EC must tackle concrete use generally. That includes alternate structural methods (e.g. tall timber construction) and engineering that minimizes concrete volume without any loss of strength or durability. 6 See the County of Marin Low-Carbon Concrete Requirements, Oakland ECAP, Measure B4, Dublin CAP (MM-2 and ML-4), and Berkeley Municipal Code, (Sub-section 19.37.04). 7 Concrete Action for Climate, Mission Possible Partnership. August 2021. 8 “Concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint,” In Nature, September 2021. Low-Carbon Concrete Recommendation February 2022 2 The obstacle As we will show, delays in governments’ adoption of low-carbon concrete standards cannot be attributed to lack of practical alternatives. Instead, the obstacle appears to be institutional inertia. In June 2019, a University of California research group published a best practices paper which offered its wide-angle perspective: “ Many local governments have not revised their concrete specifications in years—leaving in place minimum cement content requirements and other elements that are out of step with modern practices.”9 Multiple pathways to net-zero Concrete is a mixture of cement, aggregate, sand, and water. It is the second-most used substance in the world after water.10 Its global climate impact should compel regulatory agencies, as it already has industry scientists and engineers, to explore every possible approach to reducing concrete’s environmental costs. There are four ways to reduce the embodied carbon 11 of concrete: 1. Reduce and decarbonize the heat energy required in the manufacturing of cement. 2. Reduce the amount of cement in concrete by replacing a portion of it with a less carbon-intensive material that preserves or improves its strength and durability. 3. Substitute limestone aggregate with a synthetic, carbon-sequestering aggregate that uses locally-sourced stone or recycled concrete rubble. 4. Blend captured CO2 into fresh concrete during mixing, thereby sequestering it from the atmosphere. The first approach focuses on the manufacturing of concrete, and can be implemented at plants and quarries around the county. The following three approaches address the composition and design of concrete mixes for specific applications, and generally take place at ready-mix facilities. Local building codes can regulate those practices. Reducing cement in concrete Cement accounts for only 10-15% of concrete by weight but more than 90% of its CO2 emissions. Therefore, the most effective approach to reducing concrete’s global warming potential is to substitute a portion of cement with less carbon-intensive materials that perform as well or better. They are called substitute cementitious materials, or SCMs. The most commonly used SCMs, or pozzolans, are fly ash and slag. They are products of fossil fuel industries (coal-fired power plants and steel production, respectively). These materials are 9 “When did you last review your concrete specifications?” City and County Pavement Improvement Center, UC Davis and Berkeley. June 2019. 10 Gagg, Colin R. "Cement and concrete as an engineering material: An historic appraisal and case study analysis". Engineering Failure Analysis. 40: 114–140 11 The major sources of embodied carbon in concrete are the fossil fuel energy expended for the quarrying of limestone, heating the limestone to extremely high temperatures, and the long-distance transportation of cement and aggregate. A second major source of emissions is the CO2 and heat released during the curing process. Low-Carbon Concrete Recommendation February 2022 3 cheap, abundant, and meet engineering requirements for most applications. However, fly ash and slag are not without potential challenges. In a 2021 paper 12, the Sierra Club stated two concerns about fly ash and slag. First, they may present health risks to workers and nearby residents from air-borne dispersion at or near concrete mixing facilities. Secondly, their use monetizes a product of fossil fuel industries. Based on conversations with a professor of public health 13 and the sustainability director for a major concrete supplier 14, we believe that these concerns have not been sufficiently documented to warrant a delay in the adoption of low-carbon concrete standards, given the overwhelming health and environmental benefits of rapid greenhouse gas reductions. We must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Alternatives SCMs The supply of fly ash will dwindle as coal-fired power plants are phased out. But other SCMs that are not by-products of fossil fuel industries are available. A few examples are volcanic ash, calcined clay (mentioned in the Sierra Club paper); silica fume and rice hull ash (Berkeley Municipal Code, chapter 19.37.04). Recycled glass may be the most environmentally positive SCM. If its use becomes widespread, the practice will divert thousands of tons of waste glass from landfills—a significant step toward achieving a circular economy in a key industrial sector.15 Last year a Connecticut plant began manufacturing a concrete-grade pozzolan from post-consumer glass.16 We are not aware of plans to launch a similar facility on the West Coast. Owing to the growing importance that investors place on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors, business and environmental considerations are coming into closer alignment. 17 Concrete companies will choose SCMs with lower carbon footprints as long as their supply is reliable, their performance meets engineering requirements, and their price is competitive. 12 “Sierra Club Guidance: Cement Manufacturing,” June 2021. 13 Professor Emeritus Thomas McKone of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health stated that the most significant pollutant from grinding and handling fly ash is PM2.5. But, he said, other SCMs, such as volcanic ash or limestone, pose similar risks so proper handling practices must be followed in any case. Embedded in concrete, fly ash and slag are not “bio-available.” Professor McKone said their use as SCMs is, therefore, a safer “disposal” method than heaping the material on the ground, where their toxic components can contaminate soil and leach into groundwater. Phone conversation. 14 “No fossil fuel plant could operate solely on the sale of fly ash.” Juan Gonzalez, Sustainability Director, Central Concrete.. 15 “The Circular Economy and the Promise of Glass in Concrete,” Google and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016. 16 “Ground Glass Positively Premiers.” Concrete Products, May 2021. 17 Phone interview with Juan Gonzalez, Sustainability Director, Central Concrete. 4 Low-Carbon Concrete Recommendation February 2022 Synthetic aggregates and CarbonCure technologies Two promising technologies sequester CO2. obtained from current industrial operations. Blue Planet’s synthetic carbon-sequestering aggregate replaces limestone gravel, transported by rail thousands of miles from quarry sites. The company has applied for a permit to open a plant in Pittsburg. The Blue Planet technology combines captured CO2 with calcium sourced from waste. Its website states “[Its] aggregate is so carbon negative that it offsets all the emissions from the cement in the concrete, making the mix carbon negative.”18 CarbonCure is another proprietary technology for sequestering carbon. The method involves injection of captured CO₂ into fresh concrete during mixing. This technique can also be used in production of precast concrete and concrete block. According its website, CarbonCure improves concrete’s compressive strength and significantly reduces its carbon footprint.19 A number of other technologies for reducing the global warming potential of concrete are emerging, but these two are locally available and ready for use.20 Approach to regulation These methods are not stand-alone mitigations. Used together, they can produce concrete that is carbon-negative.21 In other words, they can offset more carbon through carbon capture, sequestration, or avoidance, than they emit. Given the ongoing, rapid development of new technologies, the most practical approach to regulating embodied carbon must be flexible: establish standards that limit total embodied carbon, or global warming potential, of a project. Project applicants will then choose the most appropriate way to meet to meet those standards, based on technical requirements, design considerations, cost, and availability. The low-carbon concrete requirements developed by the County of Marin 22 as “model code” under a BAAQMD grant, take this approach. In partnership with stakeholders across the region, the County established codes that provide for two alternative compliance pathways:23 1.Limit the maximum allowable amount of cement (specified in lbs/yd3) necessary to achieve the compressive strength required for specific applications; or, 2.Limit the maximum embodied carbon (kg CO2e/m3) of the total concrete usage within a project. This value is calculated using the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for particular concrete mix designs. 18 Blue Planet website. Retrieved January 26, 2022. 19 Carbon Cure website. Retrieved February 9, 2022 20 See the Sustainability page of the Central Concrete website. 21 Mr. Juan Gonzalez. See earlier citation. 22 County of Marin, Low Carbon Concrete Requirements. 23 Marin County Code Chapter 19.07, table 19.07.050 Low-Carbon Concrete Recommendation February 2022 5 Compliance under the first pathway is achieved, in essence, by following a recipe. Because it is simple, most contractors follow this pathway. The second pathway, though more complex, leaves the door open for meeting the standards through any combination of SCMs, synthetic aggregate, CO2 injection, or even cement substitutes that may be on the horizon. It seems that the Marin low-carbon requirement is future-proofed. Our recommendation Consider the landscape before us. We see: • A growing number of jurisdictions adopting low-carbon concrete standards; • An industry that already offers lower-carbon products and is incentivized to deliver still lower-carbon materials and technologies; • Practical and flexible low-carbon concrete building codes currently in effect; • And especially, a rise of more than 6% in global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, compared to the previous year.24 Against that background, we urge the Sustainability Commission to recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to study adoption of low-carbon concrete standards. We further recommend that these standards be implemented through reach codes that would apply to all new construction in unincorporated Contra Costa. 24 The spike was largely a rebound from the pandemic-induced drop in energy use of 2020. “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bounced Back Sharply in 2021,” New York Times, January 10, 2022. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the February 2022 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department submits a monthly report to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to ensure ongoing communication and updates to the County Administrator and BOS regarding any and all issues pertaining to the Head Start Program and Community Services Bureau. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 925-608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Marsh, Interim Employment and Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:February 2022 Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau ATTACHMENTS CSB Feb 2022 CAO Report CSB Feb 2022 HS Financial Report Jan 2022 CSB Feb 2022 EHS Financial Report Jan 2022 CSB Feb 2022 Credit Card Report Jan 2022 CSB Feb 2022 LIHEAP CSB Feb 2022 CACFP Nutrition Report CSB Feb 2022 Menu CSB 2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report Summary P: 925 681 6300 F: 925 313 8301 1470 Civic Court , Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 www.ehsd.org Aaron Alarcon- Bowen, PhD Director To: Monica Nino, Contra Costa County Administrator From: Kathy Marsh, Acting EHSD Director Subject: Community Services Monthly Report Date: February 2022 News /Accomplishments  On February 23, 2022, all preschool teaching staff and Site Supervisors attended a refresher training on “Project Approach” conducted by Michelle Grant -Groves from i3 Institute. The purpose of this refresher training was to provide participants with practical information and an overview of inquiry project -based learning and strategies for teachers to implement in their classrooms. The presenter provided the connection to California Preschool Learning Foundations, including observation, documentation, and refle ction. She also demonstrated the webbing process and introduction to provocations and projects. Participants were engaged in reflection and discussion to support their learning. We provided this refresher training to empower teachers to feel more motivated to conduct more project-based learning with their preschoolers and to balance with teacher-directed learning.  The Community Services Bureau (CSB) celebrated World Read Aloud Day on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, by virtually reading to children i n the classrooms! Staff also recorded themselves reading their favorite children’s book and shared the recording on our CSB YouTube channel and on social media sites. For young children, being read to for 20 minutes a day makes a big difference as they are exposed to a vast quantity of words! We hope this inspires everyone to take time out of their hectic days to enjoy a bit of reading.  Allocations for the remaining Measure X funds will be awarded to chil dcare and childcare providers. This is such wonderful news and a great success, as funds were not previously allocated for childcare. Congratulations to the Community members, and families who advocated and spoke on the importance of funding childcare in Contra Costa.  CSB re -designed its CPR and First Aid class to a hybrid model where the instru ctional portion will be on Zoom, and the practicum will be in -person. This will minimize time away from the classroom, providing greater flexibility.  CSB conducted its Semi -Annual Monitoring report for the period of July 2021 through December 2021. Monitoring activities included directly operated centers, partner centers, and the delegate agency. The report highlights strengths and areas needing improvement in the areas of file review, family childcare homes, and environment rating scale. Please refer to attachment 09_CSB 2021-2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report Summary for more information. cc: Policy Council Chair, Jasmine Cisneros Administration for Children and Families Program Specialist, Chris Pflaumer I. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs)  Head Start enrollment: 63.88%  Early Head Start enrollment*: 83.25%  Head Start Average Daily attendance: 49.28%  Early Head Start Average Daily attendance *: 49.1%  Early Head Start Child Care Partnership attendance: 65.1%  Stage 2: 316 children  CAPP: 523 childre n  Emergency Childcare: 54 - In total: 893 children - Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 22 children  LIHEAP: 31 households have been assisted  ARPA LIHEAP **: 429 households served  Weatherization: 12 households served b. Staffing:  During February, CSB hired one Deputy Bureau Director - Exempt, three Teacher Assistant Trainees, one Intermediate Clerk -project, and one Student Intern-Project. For all other vacancies, the Bureau is working through the established process to fill vacancies permanently or by TU with support from EHSD Personnel and HR. II. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics:  The Office of Head Start (OHS) conducted a hybrid virtual/onsite monitoring review of CSB the week of February 22, 2022. This Special Review was conducted to assess the program and fiscal compliance of CSB’s Head Start and Early Head Start program as the OHS Regional Office is aware of multiple conce rns regarding CSB’s Delegate Agency , First Baptist Head Start. The review team consisted of five on -site and two off -site monitors who conducted a series of interviews, document reviews, and center observations to determine CSB’s compliance with Head Start Program Performance Standards and relevant fiscal regulations. With a focus on health and safety, ten Head Start/Early Head Start centers were monitored, including directly operated, partners, and delegate sites. Although a final report is not anticipated for up to 60 days, the review team provided informal feedback to conclude the review. The reviewers were very impressed with the centers; not only with cleanliness but especially with the passion shown by the teaching staff. It has been communicated that some improvement is needed in the areas of governance, health/safety and cc: Policy Council Chair, Jasmine Cisneros Administration for Children and Families Program Specialist, Chris Pflaumer supervision, and fiscal. CSB has already begun to strengthen these areas. The review team acknowledged CSB’s many strengths as a program and that any potential concerns were correctable.  Effective as of February 2022, the Administration For Children and Families (ACF) consolidated the grant for the Early Head Start -Child Care Partnership Program (CCP) with the regular Early Head Start Program (EHS) to streamline the monitoring of program objectives, grant budget application, and program measures. Please refer to attachment 04_CSB EHS Financial Report – January 2022 to review the consolidated report . *EHS and EHS-CCP are now reported as one combined enrollment percentage effective January 2022 as grants have been consolidated ** ARPA LIHEAP is a new contract that was executed in October for clients impacted by COVID -19 wi th large past due energy bills. JANUARY Total Remaining 8% DESCRIPTION YTD Actual Budget Budget %YTD a. PERSONNEL 343,026$ 4,553,936$ 4,210,910$ 8% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 209,957 3,077,030 2,867,073 7% c. TRAVEL - 16,765 16,765 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 55,326 258,500 203,174 21% f. CONTRACTUAL 6,415 4,296,092 4,289,677 0% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 37,106 4,752,926 4,715,820 1% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 651,829$ 16,955,249$ 16,303,420$ 4% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 865,248 865,248 0% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 651,829$ 17,820,497$ 17,168,668$ 4% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)162,957$ 4,450,933$ 4,287,976$ 4% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2022 HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 AS OF JANUARY 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 Actual Total YTD Total Remaining 8% Jan-22 Actual Budget Budget % YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 330,057 330,057 4,330,502 4,000,445 8% Temporary 1013 12,969 12,969 223,434 210,465 6% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)343,026 343,026 4,553,936 4,210,910 8% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 209,957 209,957 3,077,030 2,867,073 7% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)209,957 209,957 3,077,030 2,867,073 7% c. Travel (Object Class 6c)- - - - - HS Staff - - 16,765 16,765 - c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - 16,765 16,765 - d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d) 2. Classroom/Outdoor/Home-based/FCC - - - - - 4. Other Equipment - - - - - d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d)- - - - - e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 854 854 60,000 59,146 1% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)3,922 3,922 90,000 86,078 4% 4. Other Supplies Health and Safety Supplies - - 1,000 1,000 Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement 50,550 50,550 100,000 49,450 51% Health/Safety Supplies - - 3,000 3,000 0% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - 1,500 1,500 Employee Morale - - 2,000 2,000 0% Household Supplies - - 1,000 1,000 0% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)55,326 55,326 258,500 203,174 21% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - 20,000 20,000 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - Health Consultant 5,440 5,440 55,000 49,560 10% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 One Solution 975 975 27,185 26,210 4% Diane Godard - - 12,000 12,000 0% Josephine Lee - - 5,000 5,000 0% St John Maria/Nalo Ayannakai/Tandem/McClendon - - 15,000 15,000 0% 7. Delegate Agency Costs First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 - - 2,313,753 2,313,753 0% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts First Baptist/Fairgrounds Wrap - - 440,464 440,464 0% First Baptist/Fairgrounds Enhance - - 117,986 117,986 0% Martinez ECC - - 160,400 160,400 0% Tiny Toes - - 87,392 87,392 0% YMCA of the East Bay - - 708,912 708,912 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)6,415 6,415 4,296,092 4,289,677 0% g. CONSTRUCTION (Object Class 6g)- h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 9,098 9,098 360,000 350,902 3% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone 2,035 2,035 250,000 247,965 1% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - 2,400 2,400 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 1,756 1,756 362,411 360,655 0% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)1,721 1,721 14,375 12,654 12% 9. Nutrition Services Child Nutrition Costs - - 540,000 540,000 0% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- - (60,000) (60,000) 0% 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - 1,060 1,060 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - 1,000 1,000 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - - 1,000 1,000 0% Policy Council Activities - - 2,000 2,000 0% Male Involvement Activities - - 500 500 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - 7,925 7,925 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 5,500 5,500 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Auditor Controllers - - 4,500 4,500 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - - 20,000 20,000 0% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing Outreach/Printing 75 75 1,500 1,425 5% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)14,075 14,075 30,000 15,925 47% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)- - 5,000 5,000 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 813 813 75,000 74,188 1% 17. Other Site Security Guards - - 4,832 4,832 0% Dental/Medical Services - - 1,000 1,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 7,533 7,533 115,000 107,467 7% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - - 55,000 55,000 0% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - 10,000 10,000 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - 465,000 465,000 0% Other Departmental Expenses - - 2,472,589 2,472,589 0% h. OTHER (6h)37,106 37,106 4,752,926 4,715,820 1% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)651,829 651,829 16,955,249 16,303,420 4% j. INDIRECT COSTS - - 865,248 865,248 0% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)651,829 651,829 17,820,497 17,168,668 4% Non-Federal Share (In-kind)162,957 162,957 4,450,933 4,287,976 4% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2022 HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 AS OF JANUARY 2022 JANUARY Total Remaining 8% DESCRIPTION YTD Actual Budget Budget %YTD a. PERSONNEL 46,221$ 1,685,285$ 1,639,064$ 3% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 29,550 1,103,060 1,073,510 3% c. TRAVEL - 7,185 7,185 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 3,715 140,500 136,785 3% f. CONTRACTUAL 720 3,095,030 3,094,310 0% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 201 2,662,534 2,662,333 0% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 80,407$ 8,693,594$ 8,613,187$ 1% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 320,204 320,204 0% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 80,407$ 9,013,798$ 8,933,391$ 1% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)20,102$ 2,253,450$ 2,233,348$ 1% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2022 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 AS OF JANUARY 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 Actual Total YTD Total Remaining 8% Jan-22 Actual Budget Budget % YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 45,747 45,747 1,541,229 1,495,482 3% Temporary 1013 474 474 144,056 143,582 0% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)46,221 46,221 1,685,285 1,639,064 3% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)29,550 29,550 1,103,060 1,073,510 3% c. Travel (Object Class 6c) 1. Out-of-Town Travel - - 7,185 7,185 - c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - 7,185 7,185 - e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 1,480 1,480 27,000 25,520 5% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)2,134 2,134 95,000 92,866 2% 4. Other Supplies Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement - - 13,500 13,500 0% Health/Safety Supplies - - 1,000 1,000 0% Household Supplies 12 12 3,000 2,988 0% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)3,715 3,715 140,500 136,785 3% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - 3,000 3,000 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services Health Consultant 720 720 23,050 22,330 3% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 Leadership Trainings/Seminars/Worshops - - 30,000 30,000 0% Demogtaphic/Data Research - - 25,000 25,000 0% Practice Based Coaching/Classroom Observation - - 15,000 15,000 0% Family Development Credential/Reflective Practice - - 40,000 40,000 0% Reflective Practice - - 15,000 15,000 0% 7. Delegate Agency Costs 8. Other Contracts First Baptist/Fairgrounds and Lone Tree - - 180,960 180,960 0% First Baptist/East Leland and Kids Castle - - 274,560 274,560 0% Aspiranet - - 949,760 949,760 0% Cocokids Crossroads - - 194,720 194,720 0% KinderCare - - 319,520 319,520 0% Martinez ECC - - 99,840 99,840 0% Tiny Toes YMCA of the East Bay - - 408,960 408,960 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)720 720 3,095,030 3,094,310 0% g. CONSTRUCTION (Object Class 6g)- h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 1. Depreciation/Use Allowance - - - - 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases - - 25,000 25,000 0% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone - - 10,000 10,000 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy - - 265,000 265,000 0% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)- - 2,875 2,875 0% 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - 3,000 3,000 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - - 4,000 4,000 0% Policy Council Activities - - 1,000 1,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - 1,000 1,000 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 2,000 2,000 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Auditor Controllers - - 500 500 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - - 9,000 9,000 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - 2,000 2,000 0% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)- - 52,020 52,020 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - - 4,000 4,000 0% 17. Other Site Security Guards - - 3,139 3,139 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 201 201 54,000 53,799 0% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - - 38,000 38,000 0% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - 1,000 1,000 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - 35,000 35,000 0% Other Departmental Expenses - - 2,150,000 2,150,000 0% h. OTHER (6h)201 201 2,662,534 2,662,333 0% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)80,407 80,407 8,693,594 8,613,187 1% j. INDIRECT COSTS - - 320,204 320,204 0% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)80,407 80,407 9,013,798 8,933,391 1% Non-Federal Share (In-kind)20,102 20,102 2,253,450 2,233,348 1% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2022 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2022 AS OF JANUARY 2022 COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE January 2022 Stat. Date Amount Program Purpose/Description 01/24/22 $74.18 Head Start T & TA Office Exp 01/24/22 $241.45 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Office Exp $315.63 01/24/22 $13.75 Head Start T & TA Books, Periodicals 01/24/22 $2,164.30 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Books, Periodicals 01/24/22 $2,360.65 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Books, Periodicals 01/24/22 $2,528.86 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Books, Periodicals 01/24/22 $3,271.46 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Books, Periodicals $10,339.02 01/24/22 $54.84 Indirect Admin Costs Minor Furniture/Equipment 01/24/22 $439.22 HS Basic Grant Minor Furniture/Equipment $494.06 01/24/22 $96.37 Head Start T & TA Transportation & Travel $96.37 01/24/22 ($316.70)Head Start T & TA Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 ($30.56)EHS T & TA Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 $117.95 Head Start T & TA Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 $174.90 HS CARES COVID-19 Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 $335.60 Head Start T & TA Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 $631.90 Head Start T & TA Other Travel Employees 01/24/22 $1,063.15 EHS T & TA Other Travel Employees $1,976.24 01/24/22 $125.00 Head Start T & TA Training & Registration 01/24/22 $459.00 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration 01/24/22 $500.00 Head Start T & TA Training & Registration 01/24/22 $625.00 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Training & Registration 01/24/22 $1,115.65 Head Start T & TA Training & Registration 01/24/22 $1,737.00 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration 01/24/22 $1,800.37 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration $6,362.02 01/24/22 $19.63 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Other Special Dpmtal Exp $19.63 Total $19,602.97 CAO Report Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Community Services Block Grant Year-to-Date Expenditures As of January 2022 1)CONTRACT NO. 20B-2005 / Term: Oct. 1, 2019 through Dec. 31, 2021 2020 LIHEAP WX 1,280,226 (1,280,097)129 100% 2020 EHA-16 1,132,577 (1,007,373)125,204 89% 2020 UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)2,466,877 (2,469,656)-2,779 100% TOTAL 2020 LIHEAP CONTRACT 4,879,680 (4,757,126)122,554 97% 2)CONTRACT NO. 20U-2554 / Term: Jul. 1, 2020 - Dec 21, 2021 2020 CARES EHA-16 387,634 (383,606)4,028 99% 2020 CARES UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)727,903 (727,903)0 100% TOTAL 2020 LIHEAP CARES ACT CONTRACT 1,115,537 (1,111,509)4,028 100% 3)CONTRACT NO. 21F-4007 / Term: Jan. 1, 2021 - May 31, 2022 2021 CSBG CAA 876,852 (556,507)320,345 63% TOTAL 2021 CSBG CONTRACT 876,852 (556,507)320,345 63% 4)CONTRACT NO. 21B-5005 / Term: November 1, 2020 - June 30, 2022 2021 EHA-16 1,028,290 (488,476)539,814 48% *2021 LIHEAP WX 1,162,508 (1,098,107)64,401 94% 2021 LIHEAP UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)2,241,528 (2,238,220)3,308 100% TOTAL 2021 LIHEAP CONTRACT 4,432,326 (3,824,803)607,523 86% 5)CONTRACT NO. 21V-5554 / Term: Aug 1, 2021 - March 31, 2023 2020 CARES EHA-16 1,247,985 (99,018)1,148,967 8% 2020 CARES UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)3,444,326 (324,811)3,119,515 9% TOTAL 2021 ARPA LIHEAP CONTRACT 4,692,311 (423,829)4,268,482 9% 6)CONTRACT NO. 20F-3646 / Term: Mar. 27, 2020 - May 31, 2022 2020 CSBG CARES CAA 1,189,181 (517,771)671,410 44% 2020 CSBG CARES CAA DISCRETIONARY 40,370 0 0 0% TOTAL 2020 CSBG CARES CONTRACT 1,189,181 (517,771)671,410 44% BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED 2022 Month covered Jan-22 Approved sites operated this month  13 Number of days meals served this month 20 Average daily participation 268 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 4,362 Lunch 5,356 Supplements 3,461 Total Number of Meals Served 13,179 Claim Reimbursement Total $34,902 fldr/fn:2021 CAO Monthly Reports EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED FY 2021-2022 February 2022 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU PRESCHOOL MENU MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ½ sl. + Wheat Cinnamon & Raisin Bread 1 ea. Turkey Sausage LUNCH 1 ½ ozs. TURKEY TACO MEAT ½ oz. Queso Fresco ¼ c. Shredded Lettuce ⅛ c. Diced Tomatoes ¼ c. Mango Chunks 2 ea. + Mini Corn Tortillas PM SNACK ½ c. Cucumber Slices & Carrot Sticks ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese Ranch Dip 2 BREAKFAST ½ c. Fresh Strawberries ¼ c. + Cinnamon Oatmeal LUNCH ¾ c. BEEF MOLE (mole paste, vegetable stock, diced beef) ¼ c. Broccoli Florets/Ranch Dressing ½ ea. Fresh Apple ¼ c. + Spanish Rice PM SNACK ¼ c. Sweet Potato Dip 2 pkgs. + Wheatworth Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 3 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ¾ c. + Rice Chex Cereal LUNCH ½ c. +TOFU ALFREDO WITH PENE PASTA (tofu, alfredo sauce) ¼ c. Roasted Rainbow Baby Carrots ¼ c. Fresh Pear PM SNACK ¾ c. + Lets Go Fishing Trail Mix (corn chex, pretzels, fish & cheese crackers) ½ c. 1% Milk 4 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ ea. + Wheat Bagel/Cream Cheese LUNCH 1 serv. CHICKEN CHILAQUILES WITH + CORN TORTILLA CHIPS ¼ c. Garlic Roasted Hericovert ½ ea. Fresh Smitten Apple PM SNACK ½ c. Tropical Fruit Salad 1 pkg. Graham Crackers 7 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Apple ½ c. + Bran Cereal LUNCH ½ c. CANELLINI BEAN CASSEROLE (tomato, celery, garlic, onions, kale, paprika) ½ oz. Shredded Cheese ¼ c. Roasted Butternut Squash 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ½ ea. + Wheat Roll PM SNACK 1 pkg. Graham Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 8 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Pear ¾ c.+ Arroz con Leche LUNCH ½ c. BEEF FAJITAS (bell peppers & onions) ¼ c. Roasted Broccoli 1 ea Fresh Persimmon 1 ea. + Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK ¾ c. + Friends Trail Mix (kix, cheerios, corn chex, raisins, pretzels, & dried apricots) ½ c. 1% Milk 9 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ⅛ c. + Homemade Granola LUNCH ½ c. GREEN POZOLE SOUP (diced chicken, tomatillo, hominy) ¼ c. Cabbage & Cilantro ¼ c. Mango Chunks 2 ea. + Mini Corn Tortillas PM SNACK (Pm Only) ½ c. Cucumber Slices & Broccoli Florets ¼ c. Cottage Cheese Ranch Dressing 10 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ½ ea. + Wheat English Muffin/Sunbutter LUNCH ½ c. BEAN CHILI ½ ea. + Grilled Cheese Sandwich ¼ c. Roasted Brussel Sprouts ½ ea. Fresh Orange PM SNACK - Fruity Sunbutter Pitas 1 tbsp. Sunbutter ½ ea. Fresh Banana & ½ ea. Fresh Opal Apple ½ ea. + Wheat Pita Bread 11 BREAKFAST ½ c. Mango Chunks 1 sq. + A – Z Bread LUNCH ½ c. CHICKEN TINGA ¼ c. Roasted Zucchini ½ ea. Fresh Pink Lady Apple ½ ea. + Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese ½ c. Pineapple Tidbits 14 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Satsuma Orange ½ c. + Cornflakes LUNCH BUILD YOUR OWN BURRITO 1 ½ ozs. Ground Tofu ½ oz. Shredded Cheese ¼ c. Shredded Lettuce ⅛ c. Diced Tomatoes ¼ c. Fresh Papaya 1 ea. + Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK 1 ea. Fresh Pear 1 tbsp. Sunbutter 15 BREAKFAST ½ c. Fresh Pineapple ¾ c.+ Rice Chex Cereal LUNCH 1 serv. *VEGETARIAN ENCHILADA CASSEROLE (cheese, black beans, corn, + corn tortilla chips) ½ c. Tossed Green Salad/Italian Dressing ¼ c. Mango Chunks PM SNACK 1 pkg. + Scooby Doo Cinnamon Grahams ½ c. 1% Milk 16 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Smitten Apple ½ sl. + Cinnamon Wheat Toast LUNCH 1 ea. BBQ CHICKEN LEG ¼ c. Cucumber Slices/Ranch Dressing 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ¼ c. + Brown Rice PM SNACK 2 pkgs. + Wheatworth Crackers ½ c. Roasted Rainbow Carrots 17 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ ea. + Wheat English Muffin/Cream Cheese LUNCH 1 c. *LENTIL & BUTTERNUT SQUASH STEW (lentils, onion, carrot, rainbow swiss chard, celery, butternut squash) ¼ c. Gold Beet Salad (feta cheese, mixed greens) 1 sq. + Homemade Whole Wheat Cornbread PM SNACK ½ c. Zucchini Sticks/Italian dressing 1 pkg. + Animal Crackers 18 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Pear ½ c. + Cheerios LUNCH 1½ ozs. TURKEY & SWISS CHEESE Mayo & Mustard Dressing ¼ c. Green Leaf Lettuce ⅛ c. Tomato Slice ½ ea. Fresh Apple 1 sl. + Wheat Bread PM SNACK ¼ c. Cucumber Slices ¼ c. Broccoli Florets ⅛ c Homemade Hummus (chickpeas, sesame paste, olive oil, garlic, paprika, lemon jucie) 21 22 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Apple ½ ea. + Wheat Bagel/Cream Cheese LUNCH ½ c. TURKEY PICADILLO (ground turkey, carrot, celery, garlic) ½ c. Spinach Salad/Ranch Dressing ¼ c. Fresh Strawberries ¼ ea. + Brown Rice PM SNACK 1 pkg. + Goldfish Pretzel Crackers 1 ea. Fresh Banana 23 BREAKFAST ½ c. Pineapple Chunks ½ ea. + English Muffin/Sunbutter LUNCH 1 ½ c.CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP (onion, potato, kale, kidney beans, diced chicken, + whole wheat pasta) ¼ c. Carrot Sticks ½ ea. Fresh Apple PM SNACK( Early Closure) ½ c. Sweet Potato Dip 1 ea. + Dinner Roll 24 BREAKFAST ½ c. Mango Chunks ½ ea. + Wheat Cinnamon Bread LUNCH 1 c.* VEGETABLE & TOFU STEW (roasted tomatoes, sliced carrots, celery, onion, parsnip) ½ ea. Fresh Pear ½ ea. + Wheat Roll PM SNACK ½ c. Cucumber Slices & Carrot Sticks ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese Ranch Dip 25 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ½ c. + Bran Cereal LUNCH 1 serv. EGG CHILAQUILES WITH + WHOLE GRAIN CORN TORTILLA CHIPS ¼ c. Roasted Rainbow Carrots ¼ c. Fresh Strawberries PM SNACK ¾ c. + Friends Trail Mix (kix, cheerios, corn chex, raisins, pretzels, & dried apricots) ½ c. 1% Milk 28 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ½ ea. + English Muffin/Cream Cheese & Strawberries LUNCH 1 c. TOMATO BISQUE (diced tofu) ½ ea. + Grilled Cheese Sandwich ¼ c. Roasted Brussel Sprouts ½ ea. Fresh Pear PM SNACK - Fruity Sunbutter Pitas 1 tbsp. Sunbutter ½ ea. Fresh Opal Apple ½ ea. Pita Bread ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1 % MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish + Indicates Whole Grain Rich WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY 2021-2022 Ongoing Monitoring Report Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2022 Community Services Bureau Monitoring Report Summary December 2021 Description: Community Services Bureau implements a process of ongoing monitoring of its operations and services that includes: (1) using measures, tools, or procedures to implement the system of ongoing monitoring; (2) assigning staff and consultants to the ongoing monitoring of each service ; (3) collecting, analyzing and reporting on the program’s progress towards its own goals for quality; and (4) following-up on and correcting any weaknesses identified through ongoing monitoring. This summary report reflects the compiled results of the monitoring conducted for the period of July 2021 through December 2021. Summary of Monitoring Activities: Monitoring was conducted for directly operated CSB centers, partner agency centers, and the Delegate Agency, First Baptist Head Start. This report highlights the monitoring results in the areas of Need and Eligibility, Comprehensive Services, Education, Family Child Care Homes, and Environment Rating Scale. During the Program Year 2021-2022, Community Services Bureau continues making modifications to address COVID- 19 to ensure the health and safety of the children and staff that we serve. Data sources utilized by the team included: child and family files, classroom observations, CLOUDS database reports.  84 child and family files reviewed for Need & Eligibility  86 child files reviewed for Comprehensive Services  153 child files reviewed for Education  98 client files reviewed for Eligibility in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program  43 infant, toddler and preschool classrooms were observed using Environment Rating Scale Tool  6 family child care homes for environment and education monitoring 2021-2022 Ongoing Monitoring Report Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2022 NEED AND ELIGIBILITY Top 3 Strengths:  No corrective action plan is required for Period 1.  Top three non-compliant items from PY 2020-2021 improved this program year.  Child meets eligibility criteria established by the funding source(s). Areas Needing Improvement:  CD-9600 Child Care Application: Items missing on Section IV Contracted child(ren)’s gender, adjustment factor code, ethnicity, race, language, program code, type of care, and provider code.  CD-9600 Child Care Application: Items missing on all fields in heading information and section I Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated at site level. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES Top 3 Strengths:  The Health Examination, Health Exam (CSB207-IT/PS), is obtained within 30-days of initial enrollment improved by 22.20%  TB Clearance is obtained within 30 days of initial enrollment. If not, a Termination -NOA is issued on the thirty-third day improved by 21.21%  Ensuring up-to-date child health status. Health Examination - Health Exam (CSB207-IT/PS) is/ are signed/ stamped by medical professional, including the signature/ stamped date improved by 15.39% Areas Needing Improvement:  Data Entry Accuracy between the files and CLOUDS.  Verifying the completeness and accuracy of Health History. Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated. EDUCATION FILE Top 3 Strengths:  First DRDP completed within the needed timeframe improved by 6.59% compared to Program Year 2020-2021.  Parent Conferences improved by 5.87% compared to Program Year 2020-2021.  100% compliant on the item related to Toddler Transition Plan being updated at 33 months. Areas Needing Improvement:  Verifying the completeness and accuracy of ASQ:SE2 and ASQ-3 Screening forms.  Verifying the completeness and accuracy of Initial Home Visit form. Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated. LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP) Top 3 Strengths:  No corrective action plan is required for Period 1  Electronic files were well organized  All files met eligibility criteria Areas Needing Improvement:  The client’s priority points are complete and assessed correctly.  The total monthly energy burden is complete and assessed correctly. 2021-2022 Ongoing Monitoring Report Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2022 Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated. INFANT/TODDLER ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE Top 3 Strengths:  Listening & Talking: Helping children understand language  Parents and Staff: Provisions for professional needs of staff  Parents and Staff: Staff interaction and cooperation Areas Needing Improvement:  Personal Care Routines: Greeting/departing (due to COVID-19) Corrective Actions: Corrective action plan will be developed and validated when all classrooms are observed. PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE PRESCHOOL Top 3 Strengths:  Space and Furnishing: Furniture for care, play & learning  Interaction: Discipline  Interaction: Staff-Child Interactions Areas Needing Improvement:  Personal Care Routines: Greeting/departing (due to COVID-19)  Activities: Sand/Water  Activities: Dramatic Play Corrective Actions: Corrective action plan will be developed and validated when all classrooms are observed. FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME Top 3 Strengths:  Provider-Child Interactions: Small and large group times are well organized  Learning Environment/Room Organization: There are enough materials in each area for several children to work together. Materials are stored in consistent places and are easy for children to find, help themselves to, and put away.  Room Display: Displays reflect children work and activities. Artwork is reflective of the children’s own creations. Photographs of children doing activities are evident. Areas Needing Improvement:  Items related to Lesson Plans Corrective Actions: Corrective action plan will be developed and validated when all classrooms are observed. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to submit the Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) 2022-2023 Area Plan Update for services under the Older Americans Act (OAA) and other State funded programs to the California Department of Aging (CDA) and AUTHORIZE the Board of Supervisors Chair to sign the Letter of Transmittal. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department’s Area Agency on Aging (AAA) is responsible for providing services to older adults, persons with disabilities, and family caregivers through OAA and other funding sources administered by the CDA. As part of the mandates of the OAA, the AAA is required to conduct an assessment of needs of its client population and submit a plan outlining its strategies to address these needs. The AAA’s current four-year Area Plan 2020-2024 was approved by the Board on August 4, 2020 ( APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 925-608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marla Stuart, Employment and Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:California Department of Aging 2020-2024 Four Year Area Plan, Annual Update for FY 2022-2023 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) C. 39 ). On an annual basis, the AAA is obligated to provide annual updates to its four-year plan to inform the CDA and the general public of any changes in the planning area and establish service units, goals, and objectives for the coming year. The 2022-2023 Area Plan Update was vetted through a public hearing and signed by the Chair of the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging. The Advisory Council considered and approved the plan at the public hearing on March 16, 2022. ATTACHMENTS Area Plan Update FY 2022-23 Area Plan Update Transmittal Letter CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AREA PLAN UPDATE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 Aging & Adult Services Bureau, Area Agency on Aging 400 Ellinwood Way, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 2 AREA PLAN UPDATE (APU) CHECKLIST PSA 07 Check one: ☐FY21-22 ☒FY 22-23 ☐ FY 23-24 Use for APUs only AP Guidance Section APU Components (To be attached to the APU) Check if Included  Update/Submit A) through I) ANNUALLY: n/a A) Transmittal Letter- (requires hard copy with original ink signatures or official signature stamp-no photocopies)  n/a B) APU - (submit entire APU electronically only)  2, 3, or 4 C) Estimate- of the number of lower income minority older individuals in the PSA for the coming year  7 D) Public Hearings- that will be conducted  n/a E) Annual Budget n/a 10 F) Service Unit Plan (SUP) Objectives and LTC Ombudsman Program Outcomes  18 G) Legal Assistance   Update/Submit the following only if there has been a CHANGE or the section was not included in the 2020-2024 Mark Changed/Not Changed (C or N/C) C N/C 5 Minimum Percentage/Adequate Proportion ☐  5 Needs Assessment  ☐ 9 AP Narrative Objectives:  ☐ 9 • System-Building and Administration  ☐ 9 • Title IIIB-Funded Programs  ☐ 9 • Title IIIB-Transportation ☐  9 • Title IIIB-Funded Program Development/Coordination (PD or C)  ☐ 9 • Title IIIC-1 ☐  9 • Title IIIC-2 ☐  9 • Title IIID ☐  20 • Title IIIE-Family Caregiver Support Program ☐  9 • HICAP Program ☐  12 Disaster Preparedness  ☐ 14 Notice of Intent-to Provide Direct Services ☐  15 Request for Approval-to Provide Direct Services ☐  16 Governing Board  ☐ 17 Advisory Council  ☐ 21 Organizational Chart(s)  ☐ 3 TRANSMITTAL LETTER 2020-2024 Four Year Area Plan/ Annual Update Check one: ☒ FY 20-24 ☒FY 21-22 ☒FY 22-23 ☐ FY 23-24 AAA Name: Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging PSA 7 This Area Plan is hereby submitted to the California Department of Aging for approval. The Governing Board and the Advisory Council have each had the opportunity to participate in the planning process and to review and comment on the Area Plan. The Governing Board, Advisory Council, and Area Agency Director actively support the planning and development of community-based systems of care and will ensure compliance with the assurances set forth in this Area Plan. The undersigned recognize the responsibility within each community to establish systems in order to address the care needs of older individuals and their family caregivers in this planning and service area. 1. Karen Mitchoff (Type Name) Signature: Governing Board Chair 1 Date 2. James Donnelly (Type Name) Signature: Advisory Council Chair Date 3. Kathy Marsh (Type Name) Signature: EHSD Acting Director Date 1 Original signatures or official signature stamps are required. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) is pleased to present its Area Plan Update for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (APU 2022-23). Contra Costa County is designated as Planning and Service Area #7 (PSA 7) in the State of California, overseen by a local AAA responsible for planning, coordinating, implementing, and funding programs and services for older persons, adults with disabilities, and family caregivers. APU 2022-23 is the AAA’s annual update to its current four-year Area Plan (2020-2024) that describes changes in the needs of its client population and the priorities, strategies, and activities planned in the coming year to address these concerns. Conforming to the California Department of Aging’s (CDA) guidelines on the development of updates to the Area Plan, only the sections that have changes from prior submissions are included in APU 2022-23. In addition to the required updates on objectives, service unit plans, disaster preparedness, etc., new information is presented in the APU 2022-23 that includes the following: • New demographic data from the 2020 Census and 2022 CDA demographic projections (Section 2) • Data on low-income populations age 60 years and older by race and location (section 2) • Implementation of the Master Plan for Aging in Contra Costa County (Section 4) • Analysis of need during the pandemic years using Information and Assistance and 2-1-1 calls data (Section 5) • Prioritization of services procured for the Older Americans Act Title IIIB Supportive Services (Section 5) The disruption of the pandemic on the lives of every individual has been enormous, yet it revealed our resilience, ingenuity, and ability to come together as a community of service providers and neighbors to support those who are most vulnerable among us. The pandemic exposed the fissures and inequities in our system, which had been there all along, but now has a platform to discuss and create meaningful change. The Master Plan for Aging (MPA) provides opportunities to make aging for all Californians equitable, inclusive, affordable, and effective. As the coordinator of the local implementation of the MPA, the Area Agency on Aging, with support from the Board of Supervisors through Measure X funding, the County demonstrates its commitment and leadership in ensuring that Contra Costa County residents of all ages and abilities feel safe, healthy, and purposeful. 5 SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AND SERVICE AREA PSA 7 The 2020 Census ranks Contra Costa as the ninth most populous county in California, numbering 1,165,927 residents, which represents an eleven percent increase from 2010. Contra Costa is a diverse community and has increasingly become more so in the last decade, registering a diversity index of 73% in 2020, which measures the probability that two people chosen at random will be from different racial and ethnicity groups. Contra Costa’s diversity ranking moved up from eighth place out of 58 counties in California in 2010 to fourth place in 2020. According to the 2022 California Department of Aging (CDA) Population Demographic Projections, a data set used by the State to establish the Intrastate Funding Formula and calculate funding allocations for each county, Contra Costa County’s residents age 60 and older show the following characteristics: CHARACTERISTIC TOTAL % of 60+ Population Total Population age 60 and over 304,792 100% Non-Minority 137,714 45% Minority 167,078 55% Non-English-Speaking 6,315 2% Low-Income 21,465 7% Geographically Isolated 1,769 1% Lives Alone 48,180 16% Central to the role of the AAA, and as required by the State, is the prioritization of programs and services to targeted groups, including older adults who are low-income and/or are from communities of color. The Census Bureau defines household income that is at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level as “in poverty.” An exploration of CalWIN data1 found 45,230 Contra Costa residents aged 60 and over currently active in Medi-Cal, CalFresh, or both programs. Due to the limited data available through the U.S. Census for the population of interest, Medi-Cal and CalFresh recipient data was used as a proxy to determine low-income status by race among individuals age 60 and older. It is important to note that both Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility rules may allow specific individuals to qualify even if their income exceeds 100% of the Federal Poverty Level. The presence of these eligibility rules may explain the higher number of persons age 60+ (45,230 people) presently enrolled in Medi-Cal and CalFresh, compared to the Census estimates of 16,066 individuals in this cohort (+/- 1,082 margin of error) who are “below the poverty level.” The following table shows the recipients of Medi-Cal and CalFresh in PSA 7 age 60 years and older broken down by primary race and ethnicity categories. The data suggests a slight overrepresentation of Black/African American and Asian recipients of Medi-Cal and CalFresh who are age 60+, compared to the county population. 1 MR0007E February 2022 & Monthly CalWIN Data Extract for February 2022 6 Critical to planning and targeting of programs and services is knowing where to direct efforts to maximize impact and outcomes. The map below shows that Richmond, Antioch, Concord, and Pittsburg have the highest counts of age 60 and over Medi-Cal and CalFresh recipients in the county. These hot spots deserve special attention, and outreach should be directed in these areas. 7 The increasing diversity of Contra Costa County is a source of pride and a reminder of the criticality of foregrounding equity, inclusion, and cultural and language competency in serving the community. The data on older residents presented in this section also draws attention to older adults who are at-risk because they live alone, have lower incomes, possess limited-English speaking abilities, and reside in geographically isolated areas. Governor Gavin Newsom’s passage of Executive Order N-14-19 in June 2019 that catalyzed the development of the Master Plan for Aging (MPA) validates the importance of addressing these issues and activates local communities to take action. 8 SECTION 4. PLANNING PROCESS/ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES PSA 7 The Master Plan for Aging is a 10-year blueprint to prepare California for its rapidly graying population and to maintain its leadership in promoting a healthy and equitable aging for all Californians. This vision will be accomplished through the MPA’s five bold goals: • Housing for all ages and stages • Health reimagined • Equity and inclusion, not isolation • Caregiving that works • Affording aging On June 24, 2021, the MPA was introduced in Contra Costa at a forum that drew more than 150 stakeholders representing public, private, nonprofit, and elected office. Fifteen local priorities in support of the MPA’s five bold goals were identified by stakeholders. Key themes that emerged from the identified priorities are as follows: • Address affordability, availability, and accessibility of housing, supportive services, food and nutrition, transportation, and other resources for older adults, persons with disabilities, and family caregivers. • Develop the workforce by providing equitable living wage for paid caregivers, developing geriatric training, and creating certificate programs for professionals. • Expand choices and options for various housing types, alternative living arrangements, in-home/out-of-home homecare, end-of-life care, and community development/City planning, permitting and building. • Reframe attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors through anti-ageism, anti-ableism, and caregiver awareness campaigns that also examine intersecting issues. • Prioritize at-risk and hidden populations including low- to very-low income seniors, persons with disabilities, and middle-income individuals who do not qualify for public programs yet cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for services. • Develop data infrastructure and systems to cross-share information among providers working with clients and consumers. Contra Costa is in a unique position to successfully implement the MPA. On November 16, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Measure X policy and funding allocation expenditure plan, which includes $1.25 million in the first year and $2 million annually thereafter to support the local implementation of the MPA. Measure X is a half-cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters in November 2020 to generate revenue for essential services and to support vulnerable populations. The AAA has been delegated to coordinate the implementation of the MPA locally. Measure X funding will be used to develop the Contra Costa County MPA Local Playbook, which involves: (1) engaging in a year-long planning process to set the 9 groundwork for the local implementation of the MPA and develop a plan; (2) strengthening the capacity of the service provider network through organizational development trainings and direct funding of programs and services; and (3) identifying, funding, and implementing initiatives to provide a viable and sustainable path forward for older adults and persons with disabilities in the community. A Contra Costa County IMPACT Steering Committee, comprised of leaders and decision makers from various County departments, community-based agencies, elected offices, and advocacy groups, had been established. Subcommittees are currently forming to address specific priority areas and establish approaches and initiatives to enable Contra Costa residents of all abilities to reach their full potential as they age. 10 SECTION 5. NEEDS ASSESSMENT PSA 7 At least once every four years, the AAA is required to release an open invitation to solicit proposals from qualified community-based agencies to procure goods and services funded under the Older Americans Act (OAA). Supportive Services funded under the OAA Title IIIB came due for solicitation, and the AAA issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in March 2022. To ensure that services procured in the Title IIIB Supportive Services RFP are relevant and responsive to current needs, the AAA conducted an analysis of calls data from the AAA’s Information and Assistance (I&A) program and 2-1-1 to determine the services and resources community members inquired most about since the AAA’s last countywide needs assessment in 2019. Of special interest is the pandemic’s impact on the needs of residents in the last two years. Table 1 shows the most sought after services prior to and during the pandemic. Table 1. Top Service Needs Based on I&A and 2-1-1 Calls Data Services Sought 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Homeless Services 12,145 9,011 6,852 Financial Assistance 3,202 4,401 5,750 Housing 5,254 5,092 5,700 Medical/Mental Health 5,412 5,596 4,673 Food 2,465 4,929 2,804 Legal Services 1,671 1,598 1,861 Substance Use Services 1,340 1,293 1,145 Senior Services (general) 752 1,922 1,026 Disability Services (general) 404 405 883 Transportation 1,342 804 471 Caregiver Support 722 529 432 Homecare/Home Health 260 141 210 Case Management 231 96 141 Highlights of calls data results presented in Table 1 are as follows: • The predominance of calls for homeless services may be skewed by 2-1-1 data, which serves as the Coordinated Entry System for the unhoused population in the county. • The need for financial assistance and housing support have increased in the last two years, possibly due to the impact of COVID-19 on the economic security of many Contra Costa residents. • Calls for food assistance more than doubled during the first year of the pandemic and has since stabilized to pre-COVID levels. Nutrition services, particularly for home-delivered meals, received major funding boost from federal and state 11 sources during the pandemic, including the CARES Act, Family First Coronavirus Response Act, and the Great Plates Delivered program. • Legal services remain a critical need. • Persons with disabilities needed a lot of support this past year, registering a doubling of calls compared to the last two years. • The reduction of calls for transportation during the pandemic years may be deceiving. COVID-19 has immobilized seniors’ participation in community activities. Places frequented by seniors, including senior centers and congregate meal sites, have remained closed. • The reduction of calls for family caregiver support during the pandemic should also be interpreted with caution. Community-based supportive services for caregivers all but ceased during the pandemic. Some family members shifted to remote work, providing extra support for their loved ones in need of care at home, but this came at a great cost to their physical and mental health. • The AAA’s 2019 needs assessment identified case management and homecare support as a need, and calls data from the last two years have confirmed continued demand for these services. The stresses of the pandemic on older adults, family caregivers, and persons with disabilities are clearly visible from the calls for resources and supports people have made in the last two years. The disproportionality of the impact of the pandemic on communities of color, caregivers, older adults, and persons with disabilities exposed the vulnerabilities of a system plagued by chronic underfunding and the entrenched institutional biases that have marginalized certain populations for decades. Using the results of the calls data, the AAA established priorities for the procurement of the following OAA Title IIIB Supportive Services: • Adult Day Care • Adult Day Health • Assisted Transportation • Case Management • Homecare • Legal Assistance • Telephone Reassurance • Visiting Lessons learned from the pandemic reaffirmed the need for continued targeting of services for low-income, geographically isolated, limited English-proficient, and racial and ethnic minority populations. These considerations were stressed in the RFP. The AAA also reassessed the reimbursement rates for these services by gathering information from other counties to inform the current procurement and help set equitable compensation rates that supports the viability of providers. 12 SECTION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS PSA 7 At least one public hearing must be held each year of the four-year planning cycle.CCR Title 22, Article 3, Section 7302(a) (10) and Section 7308, Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 314(c) (1). Fiscal Year Date Location Number of Attendees Presented in languages other than English?2 Yes or No Was hearing held at a Long- Term Care Facility?3 Yes or No 2020-2021 July 13, 2020 Zoom-Web based 49 No No 2021-2022 March 17, 2021 Zoom-Web based 45 No No 2022-2023 March 16, 2022 Zoom-Web based TBD TBD No 2023-2024 The following must be discussed at each Public Hearing conducted during the planning cycle: 1. Summarize the outreach efforts used in seeking input into the Area Plan from institutionalized, homebound, and/or disabled older individuals. Notice of the public hearing was posted in various social media outlets 30 days prior to the event. The AAA also sent an e-mail blast to all service providers on its master list and encouraged them to promote to their clients. The AAA reached out to Empowered Aging, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman provider in PSA 7, to help promote the public hearing at facilities throughout the county and encourage participation from residents. AAA staff has been announcing the public hearing at various community meetings, including the West County Senior Coalition, East County Senior Coalition, and Seniors and Adults with Disabilities Network. 2. Were proposed expenditures for Program Development (PD) or Coordination (C) discussed? ☒Yes. Go to question #3  Not applicable, PD and/or C funds are not used. Go to question #4 3. Summarize the comments received concerning proposed expenditures for PD and/or C. PD and C objectives were discussed. No comments were received. 13 4. Attendees were provided the opportunity to testify regarding setting minimum percentages of Title III B program funds to meet the adequate proportion of funding for Priority Services ☒Yes. Go to question #5 No, Explain: 5. Summarize the comments received concerning minimum percentages of Title IIIB funds to meet the adequate proportion of funding for priority services. Title IIIB adequate proportion of funding for priority services was discussed. No comments were received. 6. List any other issues discussed or raised at the public hearing. Questions raised at the public hearing and the responses provided are as follows: • How is low-income defined, as it applies to Contra Costa County? o The federal Older Americans Act governs the work of the AAA. As such, the federal definition of low-income is used, which is at or below 100% of the federal poverty level. Given the higher cost of living in Contra Costa County, the inadequacy of using the federal definition was acknowledged. • What are the biggest changes from last year to this year? o Last year was a bit chaotic due to the pandemic. The AAA received increases in funding with few guidance and unclear reporting requirements. There was an urgency to release the funding to assist our client population immediately while trying to figure out how to implement these new programs we’ve never done before, such as Great Plates. Thank you to the AAA staff for trying their best under the circumstances, even though they were stretched to the limit. Kudos to everything they did. • How do we get involved with the Master Plan for Aging subcommittees? o The Contra Costa County IMPACT Steering Committee has established some subcommittees and will finalize them at the next meeting and identify players to serve on the subcommittees. Will soon announce a launch event to tell folks about this work and seek community participation. • How is innovative defined? o Anything that is new. Outside of the box thinking. Promising practices that were successful in other communities that can be replicated in Contra Costa. 14 Other comments provided at the public hearing include the following: o Thank you for using “persons of color” vs. minority. o Equity is addressed throughout the document. The tragic lessons learned from the pandemic are clearly documented. Thank you to AAA. o The Master Plan for Aging implementation process is inclusive, thoughtful, and grassroots. It is a time for hope. We are starting from behind, so we are starting from broken. We will get to a stage of working, then to thriving. The AAA director’s leadership and Aging and Adult Services Bureau director’s commitment make this feel doable. o Disappointing to still have such a little amount from Older Americans Act funding from the federal level. o We are not without challenges, but we are in a better place than we have been. Thank you to the AAA team. o Kudos to the AAA. 7. Note any changes to the Area Plan which were a result of input by attendees. No changes were made to the Area Plan Update FY 2022-23 as a result of input from attendees at the public hearing. 15 SECTION 9. AREA PLAN NARRATIVE GOALS & OBJECTIVES PSA 7 Goal # 1 The AAA will engage with older adults, community based providers, public organizations and philanthropy to incorporate resources contained in the Master Plan for Aging and “Local Playbook” to develop local initiatives that build age-friendly and disability-friendly communities. Rationale: The California Department of Aging released the Master Plan for Aging (MPA) and associated “Playbook” for local communities to use in developing age friendly communities. The MPA reflects an unprecedented commitment to older adults and people with disabilities and provides a framework for planning and building communities that are friendly for all ages. OBJECTIVES Projected Start and End Dates Title IIIB Funded PD or C4 Update Status5 1. The AAA and Advisory Council on Aging Planning Committee will work with community members to review the Master Plan 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 Continue for Aging and “Local Playbook” developed by the California Department of Aging in order to design a local planning process for developing age friendly communities. 2. The AAA and Advisory Council on Aging Planning Committee will lead a process to engage local leaders and enlist their support in the local planning efforts. 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 Deleted 3. The AAA and Advisory Council on Aging Planning Committee 7/1/2021- Continue will incorporate data from the 2020-2024 Area Plan and other 6/30/2022 data sources to review and understand the needs and gaps in services for older adults and people with disabilities. The Advisory Council on Aging’s Planning Committee will work with the AAA to Include a question in the contractor monitoring tool to gather information of contractors' unmet needs and 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 Revised inform future planning of programs and services. 4. The AAA and Advisory Council on Aging Planning Committee members will develop an action plan for local initiatives. 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 Deleted 5. AAA staff and members of the Advisory Council on Aging will participate as members of the Master Plan on Aging “Local Playbook” subcommittees to assist in the development and implementation of strategies and initiatives. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 PD New 6. The AAA Program Manager will coordinate the activities of the Contra Costa County IMPACT Steering Committee and consultant(s) to facilitate the development of the MPA “Local Playbook.” 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 PD New 16 Goal #2 Goal: The AAA will promote the development for age-friendly communities, ensure that community infrastructure fully and meaningfully includes older adults and families by having accessible housing, transportation and community amenities for all ages and stages of life. Rationale: AAA needs assessment, community forums, key informant results, and caller identified need through the Information and Referral line indicate that access to affordable housing and transportation are the highest priorities for older adults to remain living in their home communities. Contra Costa residents will have access to the help they need to live in the homes and communities they choose as they age. OBJECTIVES Projected Start and End Dates Title IIIB Funded PD or C4 Update Status5 1. Through the ACOA Housing Workgroup, the AAA Senior Staff Assistant is working in concert with housing service providers, County Housing Authority, affordable housing developers, homeless programs, and other stakeholders to identify and develop advocacy strategies and solutions to help seniors struggling to find affordable housing. Anticipated outcomes include developing collateral materials and streamlined referrals for seniors at risk of homelessness. 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 C C Completed Completed 2. To improve transportation services for Contra Costa County, the AAA will work with public agencies, ACOA Transportation workgroup, transportation professionals, community-based organizations, and older adults to: • Identify senior transportation issues and resources. • Explore partnerships and collaborations to improve and expand services. 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 Continued 7/1/2021- Continued 6/30/2022 7/1/2022- Continued 6/30/2023 3. Aging and Adult Services Senior Staff Assistants, Program Manager, Aging & Adult Services Director, and 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 Continued Advisory Council on Aging members will focus on education and promotion of “age-friendly” initiatives to ensure that access to housing, transportation and civic life are planned in local municipality’s policy decisions to 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 Continued address the needs of seniors. 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 C Continued 4. The ACOA Transportation Workgroup will schedule six presentations by transportation service providers and stakeholders to get informed about services and identify opportunities for advocacy to improve transportation services in Contra Costa County. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 New 5. Transportation Workgroup members will actively participate in the Paratransit Coordinating Council and the Contra Costa County Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan implementation subcommittees to ensure that the transportation needs of older adults are not overlooked. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 New 17 6. Area Agency on Aging staff, Advisory Council on Aging members, and Aging and Adult Services Bureau Director will participate in the Contra Costa County MPA Local Playbook efforts to create livable communities for all ages and stages by engaging, encouraging, and providing technical support to cities and communities in attaining the World Health Organization Age-Friendly designation. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 PD New 7. Co-create Contra Costa County’s Aging and Disability Resource Connection (ADRC) by formalizing the Core Partnership between the Area Agency on Aging and the Independent Living Center and developing a network of Extended Partners that will work together towards obtaining full ADRC designation from the State within 24 months. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 PD New 8. Through the ACOA Housing Workgroup, the AAA Senior Staff Assistant will work in concert with housing service providers, County Housing Authority, affordable housing developers, homeless programs, and other stakeholders to identify and develop advocacy strategies and solutions to help seniors struggling to find affordable housing. Anticipated outcomes include: • Developing and regularly updating the Housing White Paper, which provides information and data to guide advocates and policymakers on addressing housing affordability in local communities. • Developing and regularly updating the infographic called “No Place to Call Home,” which highlights and advocates for local senior housing issues and solutions. • Scheduling a minimum of eight presentations by non- profit, government, and private organizations to the Housing Workgroup to foster partnerships and learn about housing related programs and policies. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 C New 18 Goal #3 Goal: The AAA will provide older adults with access to programs promoting health and well-being and will advocate for person-centered health care and services to optimize health and quality of life. Rationale: The Master Plan on Aging calls out reimagined healthcare for older adults and people with disabilities. Contra Costa residents must have access to quality care social services throughout their life span. OBJECTIVES Projected Start and End Dates Title IIIB Funded PD or C4 Update Status5 1. AAA Staff will collaborate with the Department of Health 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 Deleted Services (Senior Nutrition program) to increase meal sites and alternative meals programs in the less accessible areas (food deserts) of the county. Update: deleting objective because of redundancy with objective below. 2. AAA Program Manager/ Senior Staff Assistant will work with 7/1/2020- PD Continued Dept. of Public Health/Health Services and CBO’s to expand 6/30/2021 services in the identified food desert in East County to provide greater access to nutritious meals through alternative delivery systems, including restaurant meals delivery or voucher 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 C Continued program. The program goal is to provide meals to 50 consumers. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 C Continued 3. AAA Staff will seek new partners (e.g., Behavioral Health) who 7/1/2020- C Continued are not part of the Aging network to include them and provide 6/30/2021 greater services to older adults in great need, such as homeless and crisis shelters. 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 C Continued 7/1/2021- C Continued 6/30/2022 4. The AAA will support the support the health of older adults by providing programs that are evidenced based, including 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 Continued Matter of Balance, Otago Exercise program in the community, and Otago home based exercise programs. All program have 7/1/2021- Continued been peer reviewed and sanctioned by the Administration of 6/30/2022 Community Living. 7/1/2022- Continued 6/30/2023 19 Goal #4 Goal: The AAA will improve access to information, assistance and resources in order to achieve equity of resources and services among all older adults in our community and to address isolation of older adults. Rationale: The AAA Needs Assessment results, Key Informant Survey responses and the Senior Town Hall participants expressed many concerns about ongoing threats of potential financial exploitation by the many scams targeting older adults. The COVID Epidemic has increased the social isolation of seniors and shown that the public health and social services systems are poorly prepared to address the needs of vulnerable adults. OBJECTIVES Projected Start and End Dates Title IIIB Funded PD or C4 Update Status5 1. The AAA Program Manager, Aging and Adult Services Senior Staff Assistants, and the ACOA will work collaboratively with community-based organizations to develop and plan special programs/events/services to help address economic insecurity in retirement. 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 Delete 2. AAA Program Manager, Senior Staff Assistants and the Advisory Council will work with various services providers and other interested stakeholders to coordinate elder abuse prevention activities for seniors vulnerable to or at risk of exploitation. • The Elder Abuse Prevention Workgroup of the ACOA will provide trainings and will disseminate elder abuse prevention materials and other related presentations to the public several times per year. • AAA/APS staff members in conjunction with Empowered Aging (LTC Ombudsman) will assist with hosting seminars, fairs, or other educational events related to elder abuse and Elder Abuse Month. • The ACOA Health Workgroup will coordinate with Adult Protective Services (APS) to present three (3) Elder Abuse Awareness and Prevention forums. 7/1/2020- Continued 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- Continued 6/30/2022 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 C Continued 3. The AAA will explore partnerships with the Centers for Independent Living (core partner) and other organizations to develop an Aging, Disability and Resource Connection (ADRC). Success will be measured by development of a memorandum of understanding between core partners to pursue designation as an ADRC. 7/1/2020- 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 PD C Continued Revised (revised - see Goal 2, objective 7) 4. In order to address the needs of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBTQ) community, the AAA will: • Support CBOs to provide services for LGBTQ clients; • Encourage training for CBOs to ensure safe and welcoming environments to people of all sexual orientation and gender identities. 7/1/2020- Continued 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 Continued 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 Continued 20 5. The AAA Staff will work with APS, ACOA Health Workgroup, ACOA Technology Workgroup, and other agencies to promote awareness of the health risks of social isolation. AAA Staff will work with CBOs to alleviate isolation by: • Creating an accessible AAA website that will showcase events and community activities to ensure that community resources are available to everyone throughout the county. • Ensuring that county social workers and others (outside of the AAA) have access to resources to connect clients to services that provide socialization. 7/1/2020- Continued 6/30/2021 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 6. The AAA Staff, Advisory Council on Aging and other community members will: • Present a forum for older adults on retirement planning and options. The event is planned for Spring 2022 and will include numerous speakers on various subject matters. The AAA anticipates having an attendance of approximately 300 people. 7/1/2021- 6/30/2022 C Continued 7/1/2022- 6/30/2022 C Deleted 7. The Advisory Council on Aging Technology Workgroup will develop strategies for distribution of technology devices, broadband (by others) and training to seniors and disabled adults who are underserved. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 New 8. ACOA Technology Workgroup will participate in MPA local Playbook subcommittee and ensure addressing the digital divide and its impact on seniors is considered in the initiatives developed. Assist in development of initiative or initiatives. 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 New 9. The AAA Staff, Advisory Council on Aging, and other community members will present a forum in November 2022 on the Contra Costa County MPA “Local Playbook.” 7/1/2022- 6/30/2023 C New 1 Indicate if Program Development (PD) or Coordination (C) is the objective (cannot be both). If a PD objective is not completed in the timeline required and is continuing in the following year, any objective revision must state additional tasks. 2 Use for the Area Plan Updates only to indicate if the objective is New, Continued, Revised, Completed, or Deleted 21 SECTION 10. SERVICE UNIT PLAN (SUP) OBJECTIVES PSA 7 TITLE III/VIIA SERVICE UNIT PLAN OBJECTIVES CCR Article 3, Section 7300(d) The Service Unit Plan (SUP) uses the National Aging Program Information System (NAPIS) Categories and units of service. They are defined in the NAPIS State Program Report (SPR) For services not defined in NAPIS, refer to the Service Categories and Data Dictionary and the National Ombudsman Reporting System (NORS) Instructions. 1. Report the units of service to be provided with ALL funding sources. Related funding is reported in the annual Area Plan Budget (CDA 122) for Titles IIIB, IIIC-1, IIIC-2, IIID, and VIIA. Only report services provided; others may be deleted. Personal Care (In-Home) Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 Homemaker (In-Home) Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 4,500 1 2023-2024 Chore (In-Home) Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 22 Home-Delivered Meal Unit of Service = 1 meal Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 500,000 1, 3 2021-2022 500,000 3 2022-2023 500,000 3 3.2 2023-2024 Adult Day/ Health Care (In-Home) Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 4,455 1,3 2021-2022 4,455 3 2022-2023 4,455 3 2023-2024 Case Management (Access) Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 1,200 3 2023-2024 Assisted Transportation (Access) Unit of Service = 1 one-way trip Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 1,635 2 4 2021-2022 1,635 2 2022-2023 1,635 2 2.2 2023-2024 23 Congregate Meals Unit of Service = 1 meal Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 133,000 1 2021-2022 133,000 3 2022-2023 133,000 3 2023-2024 Nutrition Counseling Unit of Service = 1 session per participant Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 Transportation (Access) Unit of Service = 1 one-way trip Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 Legal Assistance Unit of Service = 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 3,458 4 2021-2022 3,458 3 2022-2023 3,458 3 2023-2024 24 Nutrition Education Unit of Service = 1 session per participant Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 19,950 2 2021-2022 19,950 3 2022-2023 19,950 3 2023-2024 Information and Assistance (Access) Unit of Service = 1 contact Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 17,500 1,2,3,4 2021-2022 17,500 4 2022-2023 20,000 4 2023-2024 Outreach (Access) Unit of Service = 1 contact Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 2. NAPIS Service Category – “Other” Title III Services Each Title IIIB “Other” service must be an approved NAPIS Program service listed above on the “Schedule of Supportive Services (III B)” page of the Area Plan Budget (CDA 122) and the CDA Service Categories and Data Dictionary. Identify Title IIIB services to be funded that were not reported in NAPIS categories. (Identify the specific activity under the Other Supportive Service Category on the “Units of Service” line when applicable.) Title IIIB, Other Priority and Non-Priority Supportive Services For all Title IIIB “Other” Supportive Services, use the appropriate Service Category name and Unit of Service (Unit Measure) listed in the CDA Service Categories and Data Dictionary. 25 Other Priority Supportive Services include: Alzheimer’s Day Care, Comprehensive Assessment, Health, Mental Health, Public Information, Residential Repairs/Modifications, Respite Care, Telephone Reassurance, and Visiting Other Non-Priority Supportive Services include: Cash/Material Aid, Community Education, Disaster Preparedness Materials, Emergency Preparedness, Employment, Housing, Interpretation/Translation, Mobility Management, Peer Counseling, Personal Affairs Assistance, Personal/Home Security, Registry, Senior Center Activities, and Senior Center Staffing All “Other” services must be listed separately. Duplicate the table below as needed. Telephone Reassurance Unit of Service= 1 contact Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 10,140 1,3,4 2021-2022 10,140 3 2022-2023 3,000 3 2023-2024 Visiting Unit of Service= 1 hour Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers 2020-2021 11,960 1,2,3,4 2021-2022 11,960 3 2022-2023 2,000 3 2023-2024 3. Title IIID/ Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Instructions for Title IIID Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: : Enter the name of each proposed program that meets the criteria for evidence-based programs described in PM 15-10, proposed units of service, and the Program Goal and Objective number(s). Unit of Service = 1 contact Evidence-Based Program Name(s): A Matter of Balance and Otago Classes 26 Fiscal Year Proposed Units of Service Goal Numbers Objective Numbers (if applicable) 2020-2021 1,140 3 3 2021-2022 1,140 3 4 2022-2023 1,050 3 3.4 2023-2024 27 PSA 7 TITLE IIIB and Title VIIA: LONG-TERM CARE (LTC) OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM OUTCOMES 2020-2024 Four-Year Planning Cycle As mandated by the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, the mission of the LTC Ombudsman Program is to seek resolution of problems and advocate for the rights of residents of LTC facilities with the goal of ensuring their dignity, quality of life, and quality of care. Each year during the four-year cycle, analysts from the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (OSLTCO) will forward baseline numbers to the AAA from the prior fiscal year National Ombudsman Reporting System (NORS) data as entered into the Statewide Ombudsman Program database by the local LTC Ombudsman Program and reported by the OSTLCO in the State Annual Report to the Administration on Aging (AoA). The AAA will establish targets each year in consultation with the local LTC Ombudsman Program Coordinator. Use the yearly baseline data as the benchmark for determining yearly targets. Refer to your local LTC Ombudsman Program’s last three years of AoA data for historical trends. Targets should be reasonable and attainable based on current program resources. Complete all Measures and Targets for Outcomes 1-3; Outcome 1. The problems and concerns of long-term care residents are solved through complaint resolution and other services of the Ombudsman Program. Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 712(a) (3), (5)] Measures and Targets: A. Complaint Resolution Rate (NORS Element CD-08) (Complaint Disposition). The average California complaint resolution rate for FY 2017- 2018 was 73%. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline Resolution Rate: Number of complaints resolved 1,520 + number of partially resolved complaints 492 divided by the total number of complaints received 2,425 = Baseline Resolution Rate _83 % FY 2020-2021 Target Resolution Rate _93% 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline Resolution Rate: Number of complaints partially or fully resolved 1303 divided by the total number of complaints received 1376 = Baseline Resolution Rate 95 % FY 2021-2022 Target Resolution Rate 93 % 3. FY 2020 - 2021 Baseline Resolution Rate: Number of complaints partially or fully resolved 2,830 divided by the total number of complaints received 3,023 = Baseline Resolution Rate 94 % FY 2022-2023 Target Resolution Rate 94 % 28 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline Resolution Rate: Number of complaints partially or fully resolved divided by the total number of complaints received = Baseline Resolution Rate % FY 2023-2024 Target Resolution Rate Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 4 B. Work with Resident Councils (NORS Elements S-64 and S-65) 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Resident Council meetings attended 65 2. FY 2020-2021 Target: 70 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Resident Council meetings attended 42 FY 2021-2022 Target: 50 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Resident Council meetings attended 20 FY 2022-2023 Target: 20 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Resident Council meetings attended FY 2023-2024 Target: Program Goals and Objective Numbers: C. Work with Family Councils (NORS Elements S-66 and S-67) 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Family Council meetings attended 0 2. FY 2020-2021 Target: 8 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Family Council meetings attended 2 FY 2021-2022 Target: 8 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Family Council meetings attended 0 FY 2022-2023 Target: 0 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Family Council meetings attended FY 2023-2024 Target: Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 4 D. Information and Assistance to Facility Staff (NORS Elements S-53 and S-54) Count of instances of Ombudsman representatives’ interactions with facility staff for the purpose of providing general information and assistance unrelated to a complaint. Information and Assistance may be accomplished by telephone, letter, email, fax, or in-person. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Instances1,104 FY 2020-2021 Target: 1,500 3. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Instances 2520 FY 2021-2022 Target: 2,500 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Instances 5,054 FY 2022-2023 Target: 5,054 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Instances FY 2023-2024 Target: Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 29 E. Information and Assistance to Individuals (NORS Element S-55) Count of instances of Ombudsman representatives’ interactions with residents, family members, friends, and others in the community for the purpose of providing general information and assistance unrelated to a complaint. Information and Assistance may be accomplished by: telephone, letter, email, fax, or in person. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Instances1,911 FY 2020-2021 Target: 2,000 3. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Instances2535 FY 2021-2022 Target: 3,000 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Instances 11,757 FY 2022-2023 Target: 11,757 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Instances FY 2023-2024 Target: Program Goals and Objective Numbers: F. Community Education (NORS Element S-68) LTC Ombudsman Program participation in public events planned to provide information or instruction to community members about the LTC Ombudsman Program or LTC issues. The number of sessions refers to the number of events, not the number of participants. This cannot include sessions that are counted as Public Education Sessions under the Elder Abuse Prevention Program. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Sessions 9 FY 2020-2021 Target: 20 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Sessions 6 FY 2021-2022 Target: 15 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Sessions 9 FY 2022-2023 Target: 9 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Sessions FY 2023-2024 Target: Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 1 G. Systems Advocacy (NORS Elements S-07, S-07.1) One or more new systems advocacy efforts must be provided for each fiscal year Area Plan Update. In the relevant box below for the current Area Plan year, in narrative format, please provide at least one new priority systems advocacy effort the local LTC Ombudsman Program will engage in during the fiscal year. The systems advocacy effort may be a multi-year initiative, but for each year, describe the results of the efforts made during the previous year and what specific new steps the local LTC Ombudsman program will be taking during the upcoming year. Progress and goals must be separately entered each year of the four-year cycle in the appropriate box below. Systems Advocacy can include efforts to improve conditions in one LTC facility or can be county-wide, state-wide, or even national in scope. (Examples: Work with LTC facilities to improve pain relief or increase access to oral health care, work with law enforcement entities to improve response and investigation of abuse complaints, collaboration with other agencies to improve LTC residents’ quality of care and quality of life, participation in disaster preparedness 30 planning, participation in legislative advocacy efforts related to LTC issues, etc.) Be specific about the actions planned by the local LTC Ombudsman Program. Enter information in the relevant box below. FY 2020-2021 FY 2020-2021 Systems Advocacy Effort(s): Ombudsman Services will continue to work with Healthcare Career Pathway partners to expand and improve the education for caregivers and licensed care professionals. The partnership will work to deepen the pathway into east Contra Costa County and improve person centered education and access to students with addressable barriers. The partnership will work to develop a secondary training site and expand offerings to programs like RNA, HHA,LVN FY 2021-2022 Outcome of FY 2020-2021 Efforts: Working in partnership with Opportunity Junction and Mt. Diablo Adult Education the Healthcare Career Pathway continues to thrive and is preparing to launch its fourth cohort at MDAE and first cohort at the secondary site at Opportunity Junction (in April 2021. The partners are still working to add stackable training programs such as Home Health Aid and other pathways in the allied healthcare system. FY 2021-2022 Systems Advocacy Effort(s): Ombudsman Services will continue its efforts to advance the Healthcare Career Pathway by focusing on statewide expansion in order to make the program available to other communities. The program was featured in the Master Plan on Aging Local Playbook and several Legislators are in conversation regarding advancing the program via legislative action. FY 2022-2023 Outcome of FY 2021-2022 Efforts: FY 2022-2023 Systems Advocacy Effort(s): (Provide one or more new systems advocacy efforts) FY 2023-2024 Outcome of 2022-2023 Efforts: FY 2023-2024 Systems Advocacy Effort(s): (Provide one or more new systems advocacy efforts) Outcome 2. Residents have regular access to an Ombudsman. [(Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016), Section 712(a) (3) (D), (5) (B) (ii)] Measures and Targets: 31 A. Routine Access: Nursing Facilities (NORS Element S-58) Percentage of nursing facilities within the PSA that were visited by an Ombudsman representative at least once each quarter not in response to a complaint. The percentage is determined by dividing the number of nursing facilities in the PSA that were visited at least once each quarter not in response to a complaint by the total number of nursing facilities in the PSA. NOTE: This is not a count of visits but a count of facilities. In determining the number of facilities visited for this measure, no nursing facility can be counted more than once. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of Nursing Facilities visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 29 FY 2021-2022 Target: 94 % 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of Nursing Facilities visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 0 FY 2021-2022 Target: 94% 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of Nursing Facilities visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 28% FY 2022-2023 Target: 28% 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of Nursing Facilities visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint FY 2023-2024 Target: % Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 4 B. Routine access: Residential Care Communities (NORS Element S-61) Percentage of RCFEs within the PSA that were visited by an Ombudsman representative at least once each quarter during the fiscal year not in response to a complaint. The percentage is determined by dividing the number of RCFEs in the PSA that were visited at least once each quarter not in response to a complaint by the total number of RCFEs in the PSA. NOTE: This is not a count of visits but a count of facilities. In determining the number of facilities visited for this measure, no RCFE can be counted more than once. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of RCFEs visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 345 FY 2020-2021 Target: 93 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of RCFEs visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 0 FY 2021-2022 Target: 90 32 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of RCFEs visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint 289 FY 2022-2023 Target: 289 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of RCFEs visited at least once a quarter not in response to a complaint FY 2023-2024 Target: % Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 1, 4 C. Number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff (NORS Element S-23) this number may only include staff time legitimately charged to the LTC Ombudsman Program. Time spent working for or in other programs may not be included in this number. For example, in a local LTC Ombudsman Program that considers full-time employment to be 40 hour per week, the FTE for a staff member who works in the Ombudsman Program 20 hours a week should be 0.5, even if the staff member works an additional 20 hours in another program. 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: 5.51 FTEs FY 2020-2021 Target: 5.5 FTEs 2. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: 5.3 FTEs FY 2021-2022 Target: 5.5 FTEs 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: 4 FTEs FY 2022-2023 Target: 4 FTEs 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: FTEs FY 2023-2024 Target: FTEs Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 1, 4 D. Number of Certified LTC Ombudsman Volunteers (NORS Element S-24) 1. FY 2018-2019 Baseline: Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 25 FY 2020-2021 Projected Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 25 3. FY 2019-2020 Baseline: Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 17 FY 2021-2022 Projected Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 15 3. FY 2020-2021 Baseline: Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 7 FY 2022-2023 Projected Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers 7 4. FY 2021-2022 Baseline: Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers (( FY 2023-2024 Projected Number of certified LTC Ombudsman volunteers __ Program Goals and Objective Numbers: 1, 4 Outcome 3. Ombudsman representatives accurately and consistently report data about their complaints and other program activities in a timely manner. [Older Americans Act 33 Ombudsman has recently added an Intake Lead responsible for overseeing the intake process and who works closely with program leaders to ensure all complaints are dispatched quickly and responded to as soon as possible. Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 712(c)] Measures and Targets: In the box below, in narrative format, describe one or more specific efforts your program will undertake in the upcoming year to increase the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of your National Ombudsman Reporting System (NORS) data reporting. Some examples could include: • Hiring additional staff to enter data • Updating computer equipment to make data entry easier • Initiating a case review process to ensure case entry is completed in a timely manner 34 PSA 7 TITLE VIIA ELDER ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICE UNIT PLAN OBJECTIVES Units of Service: AAA must complete at least one category from the Units of Service below. Units of Service categories include public education sessions, training sessions for professionals, training sessions for caregivers served by a Title IIIE Family Caregiver Support Program, educational materials distributed, and hours of activity spent developing a coordinated system which addresses elder abuse prevention, investigation, and prosecution. When developing targets for each fiscal year, refer to data reported on the Elder Abuse Prevention Quarterly Activity Reports. Set realistic goals based upon the prior year’s numbers and the resources available. Activities reported for the Title VII Elder Abuse Prevention Program must be distinct from activities reported for the LTC Ombudsman Program. No activity can be reported for both programs. AAAs must provide one or more of the service categories below. NOTE: The number of sessions refers to the number of presentations and not the number of attendees • Public Education Sessions –Indicate the total number of projected education sessions for the general public on the identification, prevention, and treatment of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. • Training Sessions for Professionals –Indicate the total number of projected training sessions for professionals (service providers, nurses, social workers) on the identification, prevention, and treatment of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. • Training Sessions for Caregivers Served by Title IIIE –Indicate the total number of projected training sessions for unpaid family caregivers who are receiving services under Title IIIE of the Older Americans Act (OAA) on the identification, prevention, and treatment of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 302(3) ‘Family caregiver’ means an adult family member, or another individual, who is an informal provider of in-home and community care to an older individual or to an individual with Alzheimer’s disease or a related disorder with neurological and organic brain dysfunction. • Hours Spent Developing a Coordinated System to Respond to Elder Abuse –Indicate the number of hours to be spent developing a coordinated system to respond to elder abuse. This category includes time spent coordinating services provided by the AAA or its contracted service provider with services provided by Adult Protective Services, local law enforcement agencies, legal services providers, and other agencies involved in the protection of elder and dependent adults from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Educational Materials Distributed –Indicate the type and number of educational materials to 35 be distributed to the general public, professionals, and caregivers (this may include materials that have been developed by others) to help in the identification, prevention, and treatment of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. • Number of Individuals Served –Indicate the total number of individuals expected to be reached by any of the above activities of this program. 36 PSA 7 TITLE VIIA ELDER ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICE UNIT PLAN OBJECTIVES The agency receiving Title VIIA Elder Abuse Prevention funding is: Contra Costa County Senior Legal Services Fiscal Year Total # of Public Education Sessions Fiscal Year Total # of Training Sessions for Professionals 2020-2021 9 2020-2021 5 2021-2022 9 2021-2022 5 2022-2023 10 2022-2023 5 2023-2024 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Total # of Training Sessions for Caregivers served by Title IIIE Fiscal Year Total # of Hours Spent Developing a Coordinated System 2020-2021 N/A 2020-2021 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2021-2022 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2022-2023 N/A 2023-2024 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Total # of Copies of Educational Materials to be Distributed Description of Educational Materials 2020-2021 500 Identity theft and account fraud; Elder Court/Senior Self- Help Clinic; What Should I Know About Elder Abuse; Consumer Fraud 2021-2022 500 2022-2023 600 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Total Number of Individuals Served 2020-2021 950 2021-2022 950 2022-2023 950 2023-2024 37 PSA 7 TITLE IIIE SERVICE UNIT PLAN OBJECTIVES CCR Article 3, Section 7300(d) 2020-2024 Four-Year Planning Period This Service Unit Plan (SUP) uses the five broad federally mandated service categories. Refer to the CDA Service Categories and Data Dictionary Revisions Effective July 2018 for eligible activities and service unit measures. Specify proposed audience size or units of service for ALL budgeted funds. Direct and/or Contracted IIIE Services CATEGORIES 1 2 3 Family Caregiver Services Caring for Elderly Proposed Units of Service Required Goal #(s) Optional Objective #(s) Information Services # of activities and Total est. audience for above 2020-2021 # of activities: 75 Total est. audience for above: 5,332 2 2021-2022 # of activities: 75 Total est. audience for above: 5,332 3 2022-2023 # of activities: 75 Total est. audience for above: 3 2023-2024 # of activities: Total est. audience for above: Access Assistance Total contacts 2020-2021 984 1 2021-2022 984 3 2022-2023 1,000 3 2023-2024 38 Grandparent Services Caring for Children Proposed Units of Service Required Goal #(s) Optional Objective #(s) Information Services # of activities and Total est. audience for above 2020-2021 # of activities: 0 Total est. audience for above: 2021-2022 # of activities:0 Total est. audience for above: 2022-2023 # of activities: 0 Total est. audience for above: 2023-2024 # of activities: 0 Total est. audience for above: Access Assistance Total contacts Support Services Total hours 2020-2021 1,620 1 2021-2022 1,620 3 2022-2023 1,620 3 2023-2024 Respite Care Total hours 2020-2021 2,904 1, 4 2021-2022 2,904 3 2022-2023 2,904 3 2023-2024 Supplemental Services Total occurrences 2020-2021 225 1,3,4 2021-2022 225 3 2022-2023 225 3 2023-2024 39 Grandparent Services Caring for Children Proposed Units of Service Required Goal #(s) Optional Objective #(s) Access Assistance Total contacts 2020-2021 200 1 2021-2022 200 3 2022-2023 450 3 2023-2024 Support Services Total hours 2020-2021 350 1 2021-2022 350 3 2022-2023 500 3 2023-2024 Respite Care Total hours 2020-2021 475 1 2021-2022 475 3 2022-2023 475 2023-2024 Supplemental Services Total occurrences 2020-2021 59 1, 3 2021-2022 0 N/A 2022-2023 0 N/A 2023-2024 40 PSA 7 HEALTH INSURANCE COUNSELING AND ADVOCACY PROGRAM (HICAP) SERVICE UNIT PLAN CCR Article 3, Section 7300(d) MULTIPLE PSA HICAPs: If you are a part of a multiple-PSA HICAP where two or more AAAs enter into an agreement with one “Managing AAA,” to deliver HICAP services on their behalf to eligible persons in their AAA, then each AAA is responsible for providing HICAP services in the covered PSAs in a way that is agreed upon and equitable among the participating parties. HICAP PAID LEGAL SERVICES: Complete this section if your Master Contract contains a provision for using HICAP funds to provide HICAP Legal Services. STATE & FEDERAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS: The Administration for Community Living (ACL) establishes targets for the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP)/HICAP performance measures (PMs). ACL introduced revisions to the SHIP PMs in late 2016 in conjunction with the original funding announcement (ref HHS-2017-ACL-CIP-SAPG-0184) for implementation with the release of the Notice of Award (Grant No. 90SAPG0052-01-01 issued July 2017). Using ACL’s approach, CDA HICAP provides State and Federal Performance Measures with goal-oriented targets for each AAA’s Planning and Service Area (PSA). One change to all PMs is the shift to county-level data. In general, the State and Federal Performance Measures include the following:  PM 1.1 Clients Counseled ~ Number of finalized Intakes for clients/ beneficiaries that received HICAP services  PM 1.2 Public and Media Events (PAM) ~ Number of completed PAM forms categorized as “interactive” events  PM 2.1 Client Contacts ~ Percentage of one-on-one interactions with any Medicare beneficiaries  PM 2.2 PAM Outreach Contacts ~ Percentage of persons reached through events categorized as “interactive”  PM 2.3 Medicare Beneficiaries Under 65 ~ Percentage of one-on-one interactions with Medicare beneficiaries under the age of 65  PM 2.4 Hard-to-Reach Contacts ~ Percentage of one-on-one interactions with “hard-to- reach” Medicare beneficiaries designated as: o PM 2.4a Low-income (LIS) o PM 2.4b Rural o PM 2.4c English Second Language (ESL)  PM 2.5 Enrollment Contacts ~ Percentage of contacts with one or more qualifying enrollment topics discussed 41 AAA’s should demonstrate progress toward meeting or improving on the Performance requirements established by CDA and ACL as is displayed annually on the HICAP State and Federal Performance Measures tool located online at: https://www.aging.ca.gov/Providers_and_Partners/Area_Agencies_on_Aging/#pp-planning. (Reference CDA PM 17-11 for further discussion, including current HICAP Performance Measures and Definitions). For current and future planning, CDA requires each AAA ensure that HICAP service units and related federal Annual Resource Report data are documented and verified complete/ finalized in CDA’s Statewide HICAP Automated Reporting Program (SHARP) system per the existing contractual reporting requirements. HICAP Service Units do not need to be input in the Area Plan (with the exception of HICAP Paid Legal Services, where applicable). HICAP Legal Services Units of Service (if applicable) 6 Fiscal Year (FY) 3.1 Estimated Number of Clients Represented Per FY (Unit of Service) Goal Numbers 2020-2021 6 4 2021-2022 6 3 2022-2023 6 3 2023-2024 Fiscal Year (FY) 3.2 Estimated Number of Legal Representation Hours Per FY (Unit of Service) Goal Numbers 2020-2021 30 4 2021-2022 30 3 2022-2023 30 3 2023-2024 Fiscal Year (FY) 3.3 Estimated Number of Program Consultation Hours Per FY (Unit of Service) Goal Numbers 2020-2021 9 1,4 2021-2022 9 3 2022-2023 9 3 2023-2024 1 Requires a contract for using HICAP funds to pay for HICAP Legal Services. 42 SECTION 12. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PSA 7 Disaster Preparation Planning Conducted for the 2020-2024 Planning Cycle Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 306(a)(17); 310, CCR Title 22, Sections 7529 (a)(4) and 7547, W&I Code Division 8.5, Sections 9625 and 9716, CDAStandard Agreement, Exhibit E, Article 1, 22-25, Program Memo 10-29(P) 1. Describe how the AAA coordinates its disaster preparedness plans and activities with local emergency response agencies, relief organizations, state and local governments, and other organizations responsible for emergency preparedness and response as required in OAA, Title III Section 310. The AAA ensures the preparedness of its organization and staff to meet the challenges of a disaster. The main responsibility of the AAA is to support the emergency management community to ensure that the disaster-related needs of older adults and persons with disabilities receive access to overall community disaster planning services. The AAA is part of the Contra Costa County structure and therefore conforms to the County’s overall plan for disaster response and preparedness. One element of the County’s plan enforces the requirement of County staff, including AAA staff, to serve as official disaster preparedness workers in accordance with Section 3100 of the California Government Code. In response to COVID-19, the AAA partnered with the Family Caregiver Alliance and the John Muir Community Health Fund to co-create and co-facilitate the Seniors and Disabled Adults Network to ensure that older individuals, persons with disabilities, and family caregivers continue to receive support and information during the pandemic. The Network meets monthly to share information, problem-solve, and to support one another as service providers during this challenging time. The County’s Public Health Officer and staff attend the meetings to provide updates and share information about cases, vaccine rollout, and public education campaigns to protect the community’s most vulnerable populations. The Network continues to meet and is committed to continuing efforts to share information and collaborate to address the needs of its shared population post-pandemic. The AAA also partnered with the California Department of Aging, Community Care Licensing, County Public Health, and the local Ombudsman program to coordinate the distribution of over 26,000 test kits to more than 600 long-term care, adult residential care, and mental health facilities in Contra Costa County. The AAA recognizes emergency preparedness and protection of older adults is a priority given the PG&E power shut- offs/outages, high heat in parts of the county and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic disproportionality affected olderadults, who were asked to shelter in place in mid-March. This affected their ability to obtain and access supportive programs and services, including the ability to purchase and obtain meals. Our organization serves as main point of access for Meals on Wheels as a resource for meals and nutrition. 2. Identify each of the local Office of Emergency Services (OES) contact person(s) within the PSA that the AAA will coordinate with in the event of a disaster (add additional 43 information as needed for each OES within the PSA): Name Title Telephone email Rick Kovar OES Manager Office: 925-655-0123 jcava001@so.cccounty.us Julie Cavallero Senior Emergency Planning Coordinator Office: 925-655-0116 jcava001@so.cccounty.us 3. Identify the Disaster Response Coordinator within the AAA: Name Title Telephone email Anthony Macias Senior Staff Assistant Office: 925-602-4175 amacias@ehsd.cccounty.us 4. List critical services the AAA will continue to provide after a disaster and describe how these services will be delivered: Critical Services How Delivered? a. Emergency shelters a. County staff will staff shelters b. Meals on Wheels b. AAA staff will assist with meal delivery c. I&A c. Services will continue to provider services after a disaster. The program’s platform is online and can be accessed remotely by Social Workers (call center staff). Clients can continue to call the central intake phone number, and staff can pick-up the call from any location. d. Long-Term Care Ombudsman d. AAA to ensure that contractor continues to provide services to residents during a disaster. AAA to provide support to contractor. 5. List any agencies with which the AAA has formal emergency preparation or response agreements. The AAA is housed within the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department which is responsible for care and shelter in the event of a major disaster. It has formal agreements with the American Red Cross, The ContraCosta County Office of Emergency Services, the Contra Costa County Health Department, and the Contra Costa Sherriff’s Department. 6. Describe how the AAA will: • Identify vulnerable populations - The AAA utilizes information obtained from the In- Home Support Services program and the aging network in Contra Costa County to identify vulnerable at-risk individuals. The aging network consists of a collaboration of Ombudsman Services, AAA contractors, and non-profit organizations whose purposes is to serve and advocate for older adults. 44 • Follow-up with these vulnerable populations after a disaster event - Protocols are in place to identify at risk populations and arrange for shelter care for those with special needs. AAA works with the Ombudsman Program to ensure skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and residential care homes provide for their clients, residents, and patients during and after a disaster. 45 SECTION 13. PRIORITY SERVICES PSA 7 2020-2024 Four-Year Planning Cycle Funding for Access, In-Home Services, and Legal Assistance The CCR, Article 3, Section 7312, requires the AAA to allocate an “adequate proportion” of federal funds to provide Access, In-Home Services, and Legal Assistance in the PSA. The annual minimum allocation is determined by the AAA through the planning process. The minimum percentages of applicable Title III B funds5 listed below have been identified for annual expenditure throughout the four-year planning period. These percentages are based on needs assessment findings, resources available within the PSA, and discussions at public hearings on the Area Plan. Category of Service and the Percentage of Title III B Funds expended in/or to be expended in FY 2020-21 through FY 2023-2024 Access: Transportation, Assisted Transportation, Case Management, Information and Assistance, Outreach, Comprehensive Assessment, Health, Mental Health, and Public Information 2020-21 20 % 21-22 20 % 22-23 20 % 23-24 % In-Home Services: Personal Care, Homemaker, Chore, Adult Day / Health Care, Alzheimer’s, Residential 2020-21 8% 21-22 8 % 22-23 8 % 23-24 % Legal Assistance Required Activities:6 Legal Advice, Representation, Assistance to the Ombudsman Program and Involvement in the Private Bar 2020-21 11 % 21-22 11 % 22-23 11 % 23-24 % Explain how allocations are justified and how they are determined to be sufficient to meet the need for the service within the PSA. 7 The AAA conducted an analysis of calls to I&A and 2-1-1 for the last two years during the pandemic to inform the prioritization of services for the Title IIIB RFP issued in March 2022. Based on the analysis, Case Management and Homemaker services were added as new services funded through Title IIIB. Though ARPA funds were used to augment available funds and increase services units procured through the RFP, units were not included in this Area Plan Update, as instructed by CDA. 2 Minimum percentages of applicable funds are calculated on the annual Title IIIB baseline allocation, minus Title IIIB administration and minus Ombudsman. At least one percent of the final Title IIIB calculation must be allocated for each “Priority Service” category or a waiver must be requested for the Priority Service category(s) that the AAA does not intend to fund. 3 Legal Assistance must include all the following activities: Legal Advice, Representation, Assistance to the Ombudsman Program and Involvement in the Private Bar. 46 SECTION 14 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES PSA 7 CCR Article 3, Section 7320 (a) (b) and 42 USC Section 3027(a) (8) (C) If an AAA plans to directly provide any of the following services, it is required to provide a description of the methods that will be used to assure that target populations throughout the PSA will be served. ☐ Check if not providing any of the below-listed direct services. Check applicable direct services check each applicable Fiscal Year Title IIIB 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 ☒Information and Assistance ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ Case Management ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Outreach ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒Program Development ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☒Coordination ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ Long Term Care Ombudsman ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Title IID 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 ☐ Disease Prevention and Health Promo. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Title IIIE9 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 ☐ Information Services ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Access Assistance ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Support Services ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Respite Services ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Supplemental Services ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Title VIIA 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 ☐ Long Term Care Ombudsman ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Title VII 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 ☐ Prevention of Elder Abuse, Neglect, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ And Exploitation. Describe methods to be used to ensure target populations will be served throughout the PSA. • Work collaboratively with community organizations to reach the targeted populations, including the East County Senior Coalition, West County Senior Coalition, faith-based groups, immigrant support agencies, and service providers. • Provide interpretation services, as needed, to assist non-/or limited English speaking clients in all regions of the county. • Conduct outreach by sponsoring events, presenting at community meetings, and participating in work groups focusing on addressing multicultural issues. • Collaborate with other agencies to assist in identifying and servicing low-income, minority seniors who may be at risk of not accessing needed services. This includes cross-referring clients between the AAA and partner agencies. • Focus on providing additional services to food deserts in the county. 47 SECTION 15 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES PSA 7 Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 Section 307(a) (8) CCR Article 3, Section 7320(c), W&I Code Section 9533(f) Complete and submit for CDA approval a separate Section 15 for each direct service not specified in Section 14. The request for approval may include multiple funding sources for a specific service. ☐ Check box if not requesting approval to provide any direct services. Identify Service Category: HICAP Check applicable funding source:10 ☐ IIIB ☐ IIIC-1 ☐ IIIC-2 ☐ IIID ☐ IIIE ☐ VIIA ☒HICAP Request for Approval Justification: ☒Necessary to Assure an Adequate Supply of Service OR ☒More cost effective if provided by the AAA than if purchased from a comparable service provider. Check all fiscal year(s) the AAA intends to provide service during this Area Plan cycle. ☒FY 20-21 ☒FY 21-22 ☒FY 22-23 ☒FY 23-24 Provide: documentation below that substantiates this request for direct delivery of the above stated service10: Contra Costa County AAA has provided HICAP as a direct service since the inception of HICAP. The location of HICAP within county government has aided client outcomes greatly in regards to its relationships to the County’s Medi-Cal and IHSS staff, and can more effectively solve Medicare problems for people who also have Medi-Cal because of these relationships. No other AAAs are affected. 48 SECTION 16 - GOVERNING BOARD PSA 7 GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERSHIP 2020-2024 Four-Year Area Plan Cycle CCR Article 3, Section 7302(a) (11) Total Number of Board Members: 5 Name and Title of Officers: Office Term Expires: KAREN MITCHOFF, Chair, District IV December 2022 FEDERAL GLOVER, Vice-Chair, District V December 2024 Names and Titles of All Members: Board Term Expires: JOHN GIOIA, District I December 2022 CANDACE ANDERSEN, District II December 2024 DIANE BURGIS, Chair, District III December 2024 Explain any expiring terms – have they been replaced, renewed, or other? 49 SECTION 17 - ADVISORY COUNCIL PSA 7 ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP 2020-2024 Four-Year Planning Cycle Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 Section 306(a) (6) (D) 45 CFR, Section 1321.57 CCR Article 3, Section 7302(a) (12) Total Council Membership (include vacancies) 40 (5 Vacancies) Number of Council Members over age 60 23 % of PSA's % on 60+Population Advisory Council Race/Ethnic Composition White 61% 79% Hispanic 13% 0% Black 8% 9% Asian/Pacific Islander .5% 9% Native American/Alaskan Native .2% 0% Other 17.3% 3% Name and Title of Officers: Office Term Expires: James Donnelly, President/Chair December 31, 2022 Jill Kleiner, Vice President December 31, 2022 Dennis Yee, Secretary and Treasurer December 31, 2022 Name and Title of other members: Office Term Expires: Aufhauser, Martin, Representing town of Moraga September 30, 2023 Berman, Michelle, Representing City of Clayton September 30, 2023 Bhambra, Jagjit, At Large #11 September 30, 2023 Bruns, Mary, At Large #15 September 30, 2022 Butler, Rhoda, At Large #5 September 30, 2023 Card, Deborah, At Large #5 September 30, 2022 Carterelliott, Kacey, Representing City of Pittsburg September 30, 2023 Donnelly, James, Representing City of Danville September 30, 2023 Donovan, Kevin MAL #17 September 30, 2022 Doran, Jennifer, Representing City of Hercules September 30, 2022 50 Evans, Candace, Representing City of Orinda September 30, 2023 Fernandez, Rudy, Representing City of Antioch September 30, 2022 Freitag, Eric, Representing City of Walnut Creek September 30, 2023 Haberkorn, John, Representing City of Concord September 30, 2023 Harrington, Dale, At Large #13 September 30, 2022 Kee, Arthur, Representing City of Brentwood September 30, 2023 Kleiner, Jill, At Large #19 September 30, 2023 Krohn, Shirley, At Large #2 September 30, 2022 Leasure, Nancy, At Large #8 September 30, 2023 Lipson, Steve, At Large #6 September 30, 2022 Neemuchwalla, Nuru, At Large #12 September 30, 2022 O’Toole, Brian, At Large #16 September 30, 2023 Partridge, Erin, Representing City of Lafayette September 30, 2023 Reed, Penny, At Large #1 September 30, 2022 Richards, Gerald, At Large #9 September 30, 2023 Sakai-Miller, Sharon, At Large #20 September 30, 2023 Selleck, Sutter, At Large #7 September 30, 2022 Shafiabady Sara, At Large #4 September 30, 2022 Smith, Frances, Representing City of Richmond September 30, 2022 Tobey, Terri, At Large #10 September 30, 2023 Van Ackeren, Lorna, Representing City of Pleasant Hill September 30, 2022 Wener, Michael, At Large #18 September 30, 2022 Yee, Dennis, At Large #14 September 30, 2023 51 Indicate which member(s) represent each of the “Other Representation” categories listed below. Yes No Low Income Representative Disabled Representative Supportive Services Provider Representative Health Care Provider Representative Family Caregiver Representative Local Elected Officials Individuals with Leadership Experience in Private and Voluntary Sectors Explain any "No" answer(s): Explain any expiring terms – have they been replaced, renewed, or other? Briefly describe the local governing board’s process to appoint Advisory Council members: Each new vacancy occurring on the Council is declared by Board Order. The Clerk of the Board’s Office is then instructed to advertise each vacancy for a period of 20 days prior to the filling of each seat to encourage and permit interested members of the public to apply. Vacancies are identified on the County’s website. Member at Large applicants are interviewed by the Council’s Membership Committee; Local Committee Seats are selected by the cities (usually the City Councils). All new appointments to the Council are made by Board Order. New members are given an orientation and advised of their duty to file FORM 700 and to complete ethics training for public officials as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission. Members are also provided video training on the Brown Act and the County’s own Better Governance Ordinance. Expired terms are renewed by mutual agreement. 52 SECTION 18 - LEGAL ASSISTANCE PSA 7 2020-2024 Four-Year Area Planning Cycle This section must be completed and submitted annually. The Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 designates legal assistance as a priority service under Title III B [42 USC §3026(a)(2)] 12 CDA developed California Statewide Guidelines for Legal Assistance (Guidelines), which are to be used as best practices by CDA, AAAs and LSPs in the contracting and monitoring processes for legal services, and located at: https://aging.ca.gov/Providers_and_Partners/Legal_Services/#pp-gg 1. Specific to Legal Services, what is your AAA’s Mission Statement or Purpose Statement? Statement must include Title IIIB requirements: • For the provision of Legal Services, the AAA contracts with Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS). The mission is to ensure justice, dignity, health, security, maximum autonomy and independence to older residents of Contra Costa, with a particular emphasis on those with the greatest economic and social need. It provides free legal advice, representation and education to elderly residents of Contra Costa County. The most urgent objective is to resolve legal problems that are adversely affecting basic needs of the elderly such as food, shelter, health care, and freedom from physical, psychological or economic abuse. 2. Based on your local needs assessment, what percentage of Title IIIB funding is allocated to Legal Services? Discuss: • 11 % of adequate proportion of Title IIIB funding is directed to Legal Services. 3. Specific to Legal Services, has there been a change in your local needs in the past four years? If so, please identify the change (include whether the change affected the level of funding and the difference in funding levels in the past four years). • Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a steady increase in clients seen (over 10% increase in the four years pre-pandemic). Housing matters have increased. Approximately 40% of cases are housing related, up from 27%, primarily landlord/tenant disputes and eviction defense. Prior to the Omicron outbreak of the Coronavirus, the most urgent trends concerned threats to housing and economic stability. These issues are likely to become even more pronounced in the wake of the health crisis affecting our community. • With the closure of the senior centers, the legal services provider shifted to offering virtual clinics telephonically or through videoconferencing. This has proven challenging, as many clients do not have access to technology or the comfort level to use the online tools to take up this opportunity. As a result, the provider is serving fewer seniors at clinics, although the number of clients assisted directly remained stable. The pivot to remote work resulted in added expenses (e.g. remote secure access to client database, ongoing special cleaning, transcription of voice messages, increased support staff hours) that may not be covered by the contract. 53 • The uncertainty and continued threat of the pandemic challenged the program this past year. As cases started to decrease in the summer of 2021, Legal Services cautiously and modestly re-opened services for in-person appointments, then a new surge hit in the winter and forced the program to retreat back to remote work. Legal clinics at senior centers halted once again. The pandemic resulted in increased expenses for the organization, including higher cleaning costs, IT expenses to support remote work, salary increases to stay competitive as an employer, etc. The provider worked diligently in raising funds to cover these additional costs, including conducting a Spring Peer to Peer Fundraiser, a Giving Tuesday Campaign, and a Year End Appeal. The provider also increased their grant writing efforts to support the program. 4. Specific to Legal Services, does the AAA’s contract/agreement with the Legal Services Provider(s) (LSPs) specify that the LSPs are expected to use the California Statewide Guidelines in the provision of OAA legal services? Yes, the agreement includes expectations to use the California Statewide Guidelines in the provision of OAA legal services. 5. Does the AAA collaborate with the Legal Services Provider(s) to jointly establish specific priorities issues for legal services? If so what are the top four (4) priority legal issues in your PSA? • Prevention of Elder Abuse • Housing Preservation • Access to Benefits • Access to health care 6. Specific to Legal Services, does the AAA collaborate with the Legal Services Provider(s) to jointly identify the target population? If so, what is the targeted senior population in your PSA AND what mechanism is used for reaching the target population? Discuss: Yes, the AAA collaborates with our legal service provider, CCSLS, to identify our target population. The target population is older adults with the greatest social and economic need. The mechanism for reaching them is through outreach and education at senior centers, nutrition sites, senior housing complexes, community events, and gathering places with diverse racial/ethnic populations, such as San Pablo and Bay Point. CCSLS distributes brochures about its services in English, Spanish, and several Asian languages. CCSLS recently began outreach at dialysis clinics to advertise free health care directive services. CCSLS employs Spanish speaking staff and provides outreach to immigration fairs. Website can be accessed in many different languages (via Google translate); use of a language line for other languages (recently Farsi and Hindi). Additionally, CCSLS collaborates with Ombudsman Services to reach those confined in long-term care facilities. 7. Specific to Legal Services, what is the targeted senior population and mechanism for reaching targeted groups in your PSA? Discuss: 54 The targeted senior population are those with the Greatest Social Need: isolated, disabled, low-income, and limited-English speaking ability are all risk factors. Social factors, including sexual orientation, rural status, racial and ethnic minority background, and HIV/AIDS status are also prioritized. The Legal Services Provider reaches them through a website that is accessible and includes a video describing their services as well as a blog. It also relies on frequent in-person outreach (over 35 events since the start of the pandemic through the end of 2021), ongoing Google ads campaigns, distribute flyers in senior centers, food bank distribution sites and to Meals on Wheel clients. In addition, it receives referrals from Adult Protective Services, Family Justice Centers, Ombudsman Services, Contra Costa Bar Assn., local Senior Centers, Information & Assistance, etc. 8. How many legal assistance service providers are in your PSA? Complete table below. Fiscal Year # of Legal Assistance 2020-2021 1 2021-2022 1 2022-2023 1 2023-2024 Leave Blank until 2023 9. Does your PSA have a hotline for legal services? Discuss: There is no senior specific hotline. There was a statewide Senior Legal Hotline that was funded by a Model Grant. It no longer exists, but Bay Area Legal Services does offer a Help Line for eligible clients. With the support of trained volunteers, the Legal Services Provider strives to answer calls as they come in during business hours. 10. What methods of outreach are Legal Services providers using? Discuss: The Legal Services Provider conducts outreach through a website that is accessible and includes a video describing its services. The provider also has a blog. The Legal Service Provider relies on frequent in-person and virtual outreach (over 35 events since the pandemic started through the end of 2021), ongoing Google Ads campaigns, flyer distribution in senior centers, food bank distribution sites, and Meals on Wheel clients. In addition, referrals are received from Adult Protective Services, Family Justice Centers, Ombudsman Services, Contra Costa Bar Association, local Senior Centers, Information & Assistance, etc. 11. What geographic regions are covered by each provider? Complete table below: 55 Fiscal Year Name of Provider Geographic Region covered 2020-2021 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services Contra Costa County 2021-2022 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Leave Blank until 2023 Leave Blank until 2023 12. Discuss how older adults access Legal Services in your PSA: Discuss: Older Adults can access the Legal Service provider at senior centers and at the agency’s office in person or by telephone. It also conducts virtual and in-person clinics at senior housing sites, assisted living facilities, and has staff who can travel to the home of an older adult who is homebound and in need of urgent services. 13. Identify the major types of legal issues that are handled by the Title IIIB legal provider(s) in your PSA. Discuss (please include new trends of legal problems in your area): Discuss: The majority of cases handled by Contra Costa Senior Legal Services have to do with eviction and other housing issues. Other issues include debtors’ rights and planning for incapacity. • Housing: The title III Legal provider assists seniors with problems relating to housing, including assistance with publicly subsidized housing, eviction defense, improving housing conditions, lockouts and utility shut offs. • Elder Abuse: The title III Legal provider assists victims of abuse to enforce their rights against their abusers. Services include advising seniors about financial elder abuse, fraud and senior scams; assisting seniors in obtaining Elder Abuse Restraining Orders; and, advising and assisting clients victimized by identity theft or fraud. • Consumer and Individual Rights: The Title III legal provider advises debtors about their rights, assist with debt collector lawsuits, and with resolution of some contract disputes. It also drafts powers of attorney and Advance Health Care Directives. • Public Benefits: The Title III legal advisor assists with waivers and reconsiderations in SSI overpayment matters. • It also engages in planning for incapacity (Advance Health Care Directives and Durable Powers of Attorney) for older residents of the County 56 Prior to the recent outbreak of the coronavirus, the most urgent trends concerned threats to housing and economic stability. These issues are likely to become even more pronounced in light of the health crisis affecting our community. 14. In the past four years, has there been a change in the types of legal issues handled by the Title IIIBlegal provider(s) in your PSA? Discuss: The legal provider is now able to handle a limited number of Social Security, SSI and Medi-Cal matters as well as expanding services for incapacity planning thanks to the pro bono volunteers. 15. What are the barriers to accessing legal assistance in your PSA? Include proposed strategies for overcoming such barriers. Discuss: The Legal Services Provider is small and has a limited ability to conduct outreach in languages other than Spanish and English. The Legal Services Provider is launching a survey to better understand awareness of services based on language and other demographics to improve its outreach efforts. It is also endeavoring to use volunteers to address this barrier. Seniors also have difficulty with transportation. While services are offered by telephone, many legal issues require review of documents or in person assessment of capacity. The legal services provider is collaborating with other agencies such as the Family Justice Center to provide services in the western and eastern portions of the county. 16. What other organizations or groups does your legal service provider coordinate services with? Discuss: The Legal Service Provider coordinates services with Adult Protective Services, Family Justice Centers, Ombudsman Services, Contra Costa Bar Association, local Senior Centers, Information & Assistance, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region, etc. In addition, it collaborates on many projects including the Elder Abuse Prevention Project and Abuse in Later Life Program (multiple agencies), East County Senior Resource Initiative (Meals on Wheels & others), the Resident Empowerment Program (Empowered Aging), and Pop up Legal Clinics (the Food Bank), etc. 57 PSA 7 SECTION 19 - MULTIPURPOSE SENIOR CENTER ACQUISTION OR CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE REVIEW 13 CCR Title 22, Article 3, Section 7302(a)(15) 20-year tracking requirement  No. Title IIIB funds not used for Acquisition or Construction.  Yes. Title IIIB funds used for Acquisition or Construction. Title III Grantee and/or Senior Center (complete the chart below): Title III Grantee and/or Senior Center Type Acq/Const IIIB Funds Awarded % Total Cost Recapture Period Begin End Compliance Verification State Use Only Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: 1 Acquisition is defined as obtaining ownership of an existing facility (in fee simple or by lease for 10 years or more) for use as a Multipurpose Senior Center. 58 SECTION 20. FAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT PROGRAM PSA 7 Notice of Intent for Non-Provision of FCSP Multifaceted Systems of Support Services Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016, Section 373(a) and (b) 2020-2024 Four-Year Planning Cycle Based on the AAA’s review of current support needs and services for family caregivers and grandparents (or other older relative of a child in the PSA), indicate what services the AAA intends to provide using Title III E and/or matching FCSP funds for both family caregivers and grandparents/older relative caregivers. Check YES or NO for each of the services* identified below and indicate if the service will be provided directly or contracted. If the AAA will not provide a service, a justification for each service is required in the space below. Family Caregiver Services Category 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2022 2023-2024 Family Caregiver Information Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Family Caregiver Access Assistance  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Family Caregiver Support Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Family Caregiver Respite Care  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Family Caregiver Supplemental Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract 59 Grandparent Services Category 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2022 2023-2024 Grandparent Information Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Grandparent Access Assistance  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Grandparent Support Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Grandparent Respite Care  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Grandparent Supplemental Services  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract  Yes  No  Direct  Contract Justification: For each service category checked “no,” explain how it is being addressed within the PSA. The justification must include the following: • Provider name and address of agency • Description of the service • Please refer to the Data Dictionary for Service Category definitions. Please give an example of a service that will satisfy OAA Service Category requirements • Where the service is provided (entire PSA, certain counties, etc.) • Information that influenced the decision not to provide the service (research, needs assessment, survey of senior population in PSA, etc.) • How the AAA ensures the service continues to be provided in the PSA without the use of Title IIIE funds 60 SECTION 21. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Advisory Council on Aging (40 seats) Employment & Human Services Director Aging & Adult Services Director Area Agency on Aging Director I&A Program Coordinator (1.0 FTE) Senior Staff Assistant - HICAP Manager (1.0 FTE) Senior Staff Assistant - OAA/ACOA/IIIC (1.0 FTE) Senior Staff Assistant - OAA/ACOA/IIID/ SNAP-ED/Dignity (1.0 FTE) Senior Staff Assistant - OAA/ACOA/IIIE (1.0 FTE) Social Workers (6.0 FTEs) Volunteer Coordinator (1.0 FTE) Clerk (1.0 FTE) Admin Aide (.5 FTE) Retired Annuitants (2.0 FTEs) 50 SECTION 22 - ASSURANCES Pursuant to the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2020, (OAA), the Area Agency on Aging assures that it will: A. Assurances 1. OAA 306(a)(2) Provide an adequate proportion, as required under Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 Section 307(a)(2), of the amount allotted for part B to the planning and service area will be expended for the delivery of each of the following categories of services— (A) services associated with access to services (transportation, health services (including mental and behavioral health services) outreach, information and assistance, (which may include information and assistance to consumers on availability of services under part B and how to receive benefits under and participate in publicly supported programs for which the consumer may be eligible) and case management services); (B) in-home services, including supportive services for families of older individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders with neurological and organic brain dysfunction; and (C) legal assistance; and assurances that the area agency on aging will report annually to the State agency in detail the amount of funds expended for each such category during the fiscal year most recently concluded; 2. OAA 306(a)(4)(A)(i)(I-II) (I) provide assurances that the area agency on aging will - (aa) set specific objectives, consistent with State policy, for providing services to older individuals with greatest economic need, older individuals with greatest social need, and older individuals at risk for institutional placement; (bb) include specific objectives for providing services to low-income minority older individuals, older individuals with limited English proficiency, and older individuals residing in rural areas; and; (II) include proposed methods to achieve the objectives described in (aa) and (bb) of subclause (I); 3. OAA 306(a)(4)(A)(ii) Include in each agreement made with a provider of any service under this title, a requirement that such provider will— (I) specify how the provider intends to satisfy the service needs of low-income minority individuals, older individuals with limited English proficiency, and older individuals residing in rural areas in the area served by the provider; (II) to the maximum extent feasible, provide services to low-income minority individuals, older individuals with limited English proficiency, and older individuals residing in rural areas in accordance with their need for such services; and (III) meet specific objectives established by the area agency on aging, for providing services to low-income minority individuals, older individuals with limited English 51 proficiency, and older individuals residing in rural areas within the planning and service area; 4. OAA 306(a)(4)(A)(iii) With respect to the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such plan is prepared— (I) identify the number of low-income minority older individuals in the planning and service area; (II) describe the methods used to satisfy the service needs of such minority older individuals; and (III) provide information on the extent to which the area agency on aging met the objectives described in assurance number 2. 5. OAA 306(a)(4)(B) Use outreach efforts that — (i) identify individuals eligible for assistance under this Act, with special emphasis on— (I) older individuals residing in rural areas; (II) older individuals with greatest economic need (with particular attention to low- income minority individuals and older individuals residing in rural areas); (III) older individuals with greatest social need (with particular attention to low- income minority individuals and older individuals residing in rural areas); (IV) older individuals with severe disabilities; (V) older individuals with limited English proficiency; (VI) older individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders with neurological and organic brain dysfunction (and the caretakers of such individuals); and (VII) older individuals at risk for institutional placement, specifically including survivors of the Holocaust; and (ii) inform the older individuals referred to in sub-clauses (I) through (VII) of clause (i), and the caretakers of such individuals, of the availability of such assistance; 6. OAA 306(a)(4)(C) Contain an assurance that the Area Agency on Aging will ensure that each activity undertaken by the agency, including planning, advocacy, and systems development, will include a focus on the needs of low-income minority older individuals and older individuals residing in rural areas; 7. OAA 306(a)(5) Provide assurances that the Area Agency on Aging will coordinate planning, identification, assessment of needs, and provision of services for older individuals with disabilities, with particular attention to individuals with severe disabilities, and individuals at risk for institutional placement with agencies that develop or provide services for individuals with disabilities; 8. OAA 306(a)(9)(A)-(B) (A) Provide assurances that the Area Agency on Aging, in carrying out the State Long-Term 52 Care Ombudsman program under 307(a)(9), will expend not less than the total amount of funds appropriated under this Act and expended by the agency in fiscal year 2019 in carrying out such a program under this title; (B) funds made available to the Area Agency on Aging pursuant to section 712 shall be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local funds expended to support activities described in section 712; 9. OAA 306(a)(11) Provide information and assurances concerning services to older individuals who are Native Americans (referred to in this paragraph as ‘‘older Native Americans’’), including— (A) information concerning whether there is a significant population of older Native Americans in the planning and service area and if so, an assurance that the area agency on aging will pursue activities, including outreach, to increase access of those older Native Americans to programs and benefits provided under this title; (B) An assurance that the Area Agency on Aging will to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate the services the agency provides under this title with services provided under title VI; and (C) An assurance that the Area Agency on Aging will make services under the area plan available, to the same extent as such services are available to older individuals within the planning and service area, to older Native Americans. 10. OAA 306(a)(13)(A-E) (A) maintain the integrity and public purpose of services provided, and service providers, under this title in all contractual and commercial relationships; (B) disclose to the Assistant Secretary and the State agency— (i) the identity of each nongovernmental entity with which such agency has a contract or commercial relationship relating to providing any service to older individuals; and (ii) the nature of such contract or such relationship; (C) demonstrate that a loss or diminution in the quantity or quality of the services provided, or to be provided, under this title by such agency has not resulted and will not result from such contract or such relationship; (D) demonstrate that the quantity or quality of the services to be provided under this title by such agency will be enhanced as a result of such contract or such relationship; and (E) on the request of the Assistant Secretary or the State, for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this Act (including conducting an audit), disclose all sources and expenditures of funds such agency receives or expends to provide services to older individuals; 11. 306(a)(14) Provide assurances that preference in receiving services under this Title will not be given by the Area Agency on Aging to particular older individuals as a result of a contract or commercial relationship that is not carried out to implement this title; 12. 306(a)(15) Provide assurances that funds received under this title will be used— 53 (A) to provide benefits and services to older individuals, giving priority to older individuals identified in Section 306(a)(4)(A)(i); and (B) in compliance with the assurances specified in Section 306(a)(13) and the limitations specified in Section 212; 13: OAA 305(c)(5) In the case of a State specified in subsection (b)(5), the State agency shall provide assurance, determined adequate by the State agency, that the Area Agency on Aging will have the ability to develop an area plan and to carry out, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, a program in accordance with the plan within the planning and service area. 14. OAA 307(a)(7)(B) (B) (i) no individual (appointed or otherwise) involved in the designation of the State agency or an Area Agency on Aging, or in the designation of the head of any subdivision of the State agency or of an Area Agency on Aging, is subject to a conflict of interest prohibited under this Act; (ii) no officer, employee, or other representative of the State agency or an Area Agency on Aging is subject to a conflict of interest prohibited under this Act; and (iii) mechanisms are in place to identify and remove conflicts of interest prohibited under this Act. 15. OAA 307(a)(11)(A) (i) enter into contracts with providers of legal assistance, which can demonstrate the experience or capacity to deliver legal assistance; (ii) include in any such contract provisions to assure that any recipient of funds under division (i) will be subject to specific restrictions and regulations promulgated under the Legal Services Corporation Act (other than restrictions and regulations governing eligibility for legal assistance under such Act and governing membership of local governing boards) as determined appropriate by the Assistant Secretary; and (iii) attempt to involve the private bar in legal assistance activities authorized under this title, including groups within the private bar furnishing services to older individuals on a pro bono and reduced fee basis. 16. OAA 307(a)(11)(B) That no legal assistance will be furnished unless the grantee administers a program designed to provide legal assistance to older individuals with social or economic need and has agreed, if the grantee is not a Legal Services Corporation project grantee, to coordinate its services with existing Legal Services Corporation projects in the planning and service area in order to concentrate the use of funds provided under this title on individuals with the greatest such need; and the Area Agency on Aging makes a finding, after assessment, pursuant to standards for service promulgated by the Assistant Secretary, that any grantee selected is the entity best able to provide the particular services. 17. OAA 307(a)(11)(D) To the extent practicable, that legal assistance furnished under the plan will be in addition to any legal assistance for older individuals being furnished with funds from sources other than this Act and that reasonable efforts will be made to maintain existing levels of legal 54 assistance for older individuals; and 18. OAA 307(a)(11)(E) Give priority to legal assistance related to income, health care, long-term care, nutrition, housing, utilities, protective services, defense of guardianship, abuse, neglect, and age discrimination. 19. OAA 307(a)(12)(A) Any Area Agency on Aging, in carrying out such services will conduct a program consistent with relevant State law and coordinated with existing State adult protective service activities for - (i) public education to identify and prevent abuse of older individuals; (ii) receipt of reports of abuse of older individuals; (iii) active participation of older individuals participating in programs under this Act through outreach, conferences, and referral of such individuals to other social service agencies or sources of assistance where appropriate and consented to by the parties to be referred; and (iv) referral of complaints to law enforcement or public protective service agencies where appropriate. 20. OAA 307(a)(15) If a substantial number of the older individuals residing in any planning and service area in the State are of limited English-speaking ability, then the State will require the Area Agency on Aging for each such planning and service area - (A) To utilize in the delivery of outreach services under Section 306(a)(2)(A), the services of workers who are fluent in the language spoken by a predominant number of such older individuals who are of limited English-speaking ability. (B) To designate an individual employed by the Area Agency on Aging, or available to such Area Agency on Aging on a full-time basis, whose responsibilities will include: (i) taking such action as may be appropriate to assure that counseling assistance is made available to such older individuals who are of limited English-speaking ability in order to assist such older individuals in participating in programs and receiving assistance under this Act; and (ii) providing guidance to individuals engaged in the delivery of supportive services under the area plan involved to enable such individuals to be aware of cultural sensitivities and to take into account effective linguistic and cultural differences. 21. OAA 307(a)(18) Conduct efforts to facilitate the coordination of community-based, long-term care services, pursuant to Section 306(a)(7), for older individuals who - (A) reside at home and are at risk of institutionalization because of limitations on their ability to function independently; (B) are patients in hospitals and are at risk of prolonged institutionalization; or (C) are patients in long-term care facilities, but who can return to their homes if community-based services are provided to them. 22. OAA 307(a)(26) Area Agencies on Aging will provide, to the extent feasible, for the furnishing of services under this Act, consistent with self-directed care. 55 B. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 45 Requirements: 23. CFR [1321.53(a)(b)] (a) The Older Americans Act intends that the area agency on aging shall be the leader relative to all aging issues on behalf of all older persons in the planning and service area. This means that the area agency shall proactively carry out, under the leadership and direction of the State agency, a wide range of functions related to advocacy, planning, coordination, inter-agency linkages, information sharing, brokering, monitoring and evaluation, designed to lead to the development or enhancement of comprehensive and coordinated community based systems in, or serving, each community in the Planning and Service Area. These systems shall be designed to assist older persons in leading independent, meaningful and dignified lives in their own homes and communities as long as possible. (b) A comprehensive and coordinated community-based system described in paragraph (a) of this section shall: (1) Have a visible focal point of contact where anyone can go or call for help, information or referral on any aging issue; (2) Provide a range of options: (3) Assure that these options are readily accessible to all older persons: The independent, semi-dependent and totally dependent, no matter what their income; (4) Include a commitment of public, private, voluntary and personal resources committed to supporting the system; (5) Involve collaborative decision-making among public, private, voluntary, religious and fraternal organizations and older people in the community; (6) Offer special help or targeted resources for the most vulnerable older persons, those in danger of losing their independence; (7) Provide effective referral from agency to agency to assure that information or assistance is received, no matter how or where contact is made in the community; (8) Evidence sufficient flexibility to respond with appropriate individualized assistance, especially for the vulnerable older person; (9) Have a unique character which is tailored to the specific nature of the community; (10) Be directed by leaders in the community who have the respect, capacity and authority necessary to convene all interested persons, assess needs, design solutions, track overall success, stimulate change and plan community responses for the present and for the future. 24. CFR [1321.53(c)] The resources made available to the Area Agency on Aging under the Older Americans Act are to be used to finance those activities necessary to achieve elements of a community based system set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. 25. CFR [1321.53(c)] Work with elected community officials in the planning and service area to designate one or more focal points on aging in each community, as appropriate. 26. CFR [1321.53(c)] Assure that services financed under the Older Americans Act in, or on behalf of, the community will be either based at, linked to or coordinated with the focal points designated. 27. CFR [1321.53(c)] 56 Assure access from designated focal points to services financed under the Older Americans Act. CFR [1321.53(c)] Work with, or work to assure that community leadership works with, other applicable agencies and institutions in the community to achieve maximum collocation at, coordination with or access to other services and opportunities for the elderly from the designated community focal points. 28. CFR [1321.61(b)(4)] Consult with and support the State's long-term care ombudsman program. 29. CFR [1321.61(d)] No requirement in this section shall be deemed to supersede a prohibition contained in the Federal appropriation on the use of Federal funds to lobby the Congress; or the lobbying provision applicable to private nonprofit agencies and organizations contained in OMB Circular A-122. 30. CFR [1321.69(a)] Persons age 60 and older who are frail, homebound by reason of illness or incapacitating disability, or otherwise isolated, shall be given priority in the delivery of services under this part. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Director, to execute a Purchase Order with Arthrex, Inc in an amount not to exceed $900,000 to procure instruments, implants, and supplies for the orthopedic department for the period from April 1, 2022, through January 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This purchase order will result in expenditures of up to $900,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Arthrex, Inc. is a global medical device company and leader in new product development and medical education in orthopedics. Arthrex provides instruments, implants, supplies and biologics that are necessary for arthroscopic surgeries for better outcomes for our patients. There are currently no other products on the market that can achieve the same surgical outcomes in the same amount of time and the same patient and surgeon satisfaction. By having a lower footprint, and an ease of use, surgery times are shortened, patients’ recovery times are shortened, and the risk of infections are decreased. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this purchase order request is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) will not be able to provide the surgical needs of the general population of Contra Costa County. This can lead to delays or cancellation of surgeries, and lead to detrimental outcomes for our patients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gino Rogers, (925) 370-5343 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Arthrex Inc. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022/137, initiating proceedings for the formation of a new zone, Zone 2608, within County Service Area P-6, in the Unincorporated Martinez area of the County. 2. FIX a public hearing for May 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., on the formation of Zone 2608 within County Service Area P-6. 3. FIX a public hearing for May 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the adoption of Ordinance 2022-15, which would authorize the levy of a special tax to augment funding for police protection services in proposed Zone 2608, and to authorize submission of the ordinance to the voters for approval at the July 26, 2022, election. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the proposed Police Services Special Tax District is paid for by the developer of the subdivision. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the conditions of approval for Subdivision 9545 (County File #SD20-9545), the developer of the property located at 197 Midhill Road in the Martinez area is required to establish a Special Police Services Tax District for the 38-lot subdivision prior to recording the final map for the subdivision. The proposed special tax district would fund an increase in the level of police protection services that is provided in the unincorporated Martinez area. Adoption of a resolution of intent to form a new tax district (Resolution No. 2022/137) is required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming the proposed zone, which will serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the proposed zone if the tax measure is approved by the voters on the July 26, 2022, ballot. The resolution includes information regarding the name and boundaries of the zone, the different level of services to be provided, and the method by which the increased level of service is to be funded. The resolution also directs the Clerk of the Board to publish and mail notice of a public hearing regarding the proposed zone formation. It is recommended that the Board set this hearing for 9:00 a.m. on May 24, 2022. If at the conclusion of that public hearing the Board determines that more than 50% APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, 925-655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 2608 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ AREA OF THE COUNTY. (DISTRICT V) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of the total number of voters residing within the proposed zone have filed written objections to the formation, Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b)(1), would require the Board to determine that a majority protest exists and to terminate the proceedings. The proposed police service district currently consists of a single 9.92-acre property owned by the Brent and Kathleen Echols, who per the conditions of approval for the subdivision are required to establish the police service district prior to recording the final map. If there is no majority protest and the Board elects to proceed with the formation of the zone, a second public hearing would be required to consider the approval of Ordinance No. 2022-15, pertaining to the proposed levy of a special tax on the subject parcel within Zone 2608 for police protection services and submission of the measure to the voters, pursuant to Government Code Section 50077, subdivision (a). It is recommended that this hearing be set at 9:00 a.m. on May 24, 2022, immediately following the hearing on the zone formation. If the Board thereafter adopts Ordinance No. 2022-15, then the tax measure would be submitted for placement on the July 26, 2022, ballot. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, Ordinance No. 2022-15 will not be adopted, formation of Special Tax Zone 2608 will not occur, and the Special Tax District will not be established at the May 24, 2022, hearing. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2022/137 Exhibit A Exhibit B MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2022/137 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2022 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2022/137 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 2608 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ AREA The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County proposes the formation of new zone in the unincorporated Martinez area of County Service Area (CSA) P-6, pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 2.3 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the California Government Code. 2. The boundaries of the territory to be included in the zone area are described in 'Exhibit A' and shown in 'Exhibit B', both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The formation of Zone 2608 is proposed to provide the County of Contra Costa with a method of financing an increased level of police protection services to the area within the zone. 4. The proposed zone would provide a level of police protection services that exceeds the level of service outside the zone, and if approved by the voters, the proposed zone would generate additional revenue in the form of special taxes to fund the increase in this level of service. 5. The increase in the level of service would be financed through the levy of a voter-approved special tax on all taxable parcels within the zone. 6. The name proposed for the zone is "Zone 2608" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:00 a.m. on May 24, 2022, in the Chamber of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 94553, this Board will conduct a public hearing upon the proposed formation of Zone 2608 of CSA P-6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to give notice of the public hearing by (1) publishing a notice that complies with Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (d)(1), pursuant to Government Code Section 6061; (2) mailing the notice to all owners of property within the proposed zone; (3) mailing the notice to each city and special district that contains, or whose sphere of influence contains the proposed zone; and (4) verifying that the notice is posted in at least three public places within the territory of the proposed zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, 925-655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-209-12 with University of the Pacific, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers to physical therapy and speech therapy students, for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide University of the Pacific students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. The County’s Health Services Department has been contracting with University of the Pacific since September 1, 1990. On December 17, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-209-11 with University of the Pacific for the provision of clinical field experience and instruction to physical therapy and speech therapy students from the County’s Health Services Department, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-209-12 will allow University of the Pacific students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction and experience at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through December 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, students will not receive clinical field experience and instruction at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5151 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-209-12 with University of the Pacific ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee to execute Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) #28-975-2 containing mutual indemnification language with the City of Brentwood, to allow the Health Services Department and the California Department of Public Health contractors to continue to use the City’s Brentwood Technology and Education Center for COVID-19 testing and immunizations and to extend the termination date from April 30, 2022 to May 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a nonfinancial agreement, and there is no cost to the County associated with the signing of this MOA. BACKGROUND: The County’s Health Officer has determined that accessible, timely testing and immunizations are critical to reduce transmission of the COVID-19 virus and to protect the community. On July 29, 2021, the parties entered into the MOA between Contra Costa County and City of Brentwood for mutual aid assistance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, authorizing COVID-19-related services to occur at the Brentwood Education & Technology Center, for the period from July 29, 2021 through December 31, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the parties entered into an amendment agreement to extend the termination date of the MOU from December 31, 2021 to April 30, 2022. This agreement contains mutual indemnification with the City of Brentwood. The parties now wish to extend the termination date of the MOU from April 30, 2022 to May 31, 2022, as needed to support ongoing COVID-19 efforts to reduce the transmission of the virus and to protect the community. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Health Services Department will not be able to provide additional COVID-19 testing and immunization services at this facility for East County residents. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Memorandum of Agreement Amendment #28-975-2 with City of Brentwood RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Committee (FWC) for the allocation of 2022 Fish and Wildlife Propagation funding for ten projects totaling $50,325. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendation will have no impact on the County General Fund. The FWC is proposing to allocate $50,325 or about 35% of the $145,874 propagation funds available as of January 12, 2022. Fish and wildlife propagation funds are restricted to costs for the protection, conservation, propagation, and preservation of fish and wildlife, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 13100, and are budgeted in the Fish and Game Fund (110200). BACKGROUND: On November 22, 2010, the IOC received a status report from Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) regarding the allocation of propagation funds by the Fish and Wildlife Committee (FWC). The IOC accepted the report along with the recommended modifications to improve the grant process in the future. The modifications included (1) updating the FWC Conflict of Interest Code, which was accomplished, and; (2) having the IOC conduct a preliminary review of annual FWC grant recommendations prior to Board of Supervisors review, which has since been a standing referral to the IOC. Attached is a memo describing the outreach and selection process and criteria, and transmitting the grant funding recommendations of the County's Fish & Wildlife Committee for full or partial funding of ten projects. The Fish & Wildlife Committee exercised care in limiting allocations to the direct costs of each project for activities that protect, conserve, propagate, and preserve fish and wildlife. The grant matrix attached to the transmittal shows each project in summary form, including the amount requested vs. the proposed allocation, the rationale for the FWC's decision, and any limitations on the use of the funds. The recommendations would allocate only 35% of the current fund balance in an effort to conserve a balance for future years. As shown on the next page, annual receipts have declined during the last three fiscal years. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Maureen Parkes (925) 655-2909 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: CAO (Enea), DCD Staff C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOCATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE PROPAGATION FUNDING BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2010-11 $66,969.25 2011-12 $29,576.67 2012-13 $187,437.10 2013-14 $50,705.88 2014-15 $11,694.40 2015-16 $210,606.85 2016-17 $92,965.83 2017-18 $14,187.33 2018-19 $207,918.55 2019-20 $45,173.84 2020-21 2021-22 YTD $6,994.39 $3,408.00 The IOC, at its regular meeting on April 11, 2022, considered the FWC recommendations. A member of the public commented at the IOC meeting that a Bay Area city was grappling with a geese overpopulation problem and wondered if Contra Costa County had such a problem that could be addressed with these funds. IOC Vice Chair Andersen identified that the city in question is Santa Clara. She noted that geese have sometimes been a problem in some south Contra Costa communities and that a program called "Goosebusters" has served to successfully relocate geese within fish and game guidelines. Staff clarified that such an activity would likely fall under the permitted uses of restricted fish and game funds, should such application for them be made. The IOC recommends approval of the FWC recommendations for funding. ATTACHMENTS Attachments Fish & Wildlife Propagation Fund Allocation Recommendations Page 1 of 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE c/o Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 925-655-2703 TO: Internal Operations Committee Supervisor Diane Burgis, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair FROM: From: Daniel Pellegrini, Chair Fish and Wildlife Committee By: Maureen Parkes, Senior Planning Technician Staff to Fish and Wildlife Committee DATE: April 6, 2022 SUBJECT: Grant Funding Recommendations from the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee The Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee (FWC) has completed its review of grant requests for funding from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund (Fund) and is forwarding its grant award recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee (IO). The FWC reviewed 16 grant applications and recommends 10 of them for full or partial funding. The FWC is requesting that the IO Committee consider these recommendations and make their own recommendation for consideration by the full Board of Supervisors (Board). This memo provides background on the grant program, explains the review process performed by the FWC and documents the FWC’s recommendations on grant funding. I. Background Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund The Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund was established in accordance with the California Fish and Game Code (Code) 13100 as a repository for fines collected for certain violations of the Code and other regulations related to fish and game. The most common fines are small ($25-$150) and are processed through the four Superior Courts in Contra Costa County. The fines typically stem from hunting or fishing violations (e.g. not possessing a valid license) and illegal dumping. Occasionally there are larger fines that result from violations, including failure to obtain appropriate permits for activities such as streambed alteration or illegal take of a special status species. A portion of the fines are deposited into the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund. As of January 12, 2022, the Fund had an available balance of $146,925.30. Page 2 of 4 FWC Grant Program The Board has charged the FWC with coordinating a process by which fine money could be appropriately “expended for the protection, conservation, propagation, and preservation of fish and wildlife” [Fish and Game Code 13100]. Since 1996, the FWC has implemented a structured process for reviewing funding requests. The FWC developed a grant application packet (attached), which includes a cover letter to explain the grant process and funding priorities, an application to solicit relevant information about the project, and a copy of the expenditure criteria established by California law for the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund. Public Outreach to Advertise the Grant Program In October 2021, the application packet was sent to the Fish and Wildlife Committee mailing list, Contra Costa Watershed Forum mailing list, and to teachers and programs that could benefit from the grant program including Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College, Los Medanos College, UC Berkeley, Cal State University - East Bay, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mills College and St. Mary’s College. The CCC Office of Communications and Media distributed a press release to local and regional media outlets regarding the availability of the grant application packet. CCTV publicized it on the CountyNet Bulletin Board which reaches 400,000+ homes in the County. It was also made available on the Committee’s website and to anyone who requested a copy. FWC Grant Review Process in 2022 16 applications requesting a total of $145,873.79 were reviewed. The Fish and Wildlife Committee members considered the funding of the applications at their January and February meetings. Some applicants attended FWC meetings to make themselves available to answer questions regarding their applications. II. Recommendation of Funding on Grants for 2022 At its February 16, 2022 meeting, the FWC recommended full or partial funding for 10 of the proposed projects. Projects recommended for funding total $50,324.27 and are geographically located across the County. More details are provided on the attached grant recommendations chart, which provides information on all of the applications. The specific FWC recommendations and vote are listed on Pages 2 – 4 of this memo. Members in attendance and voting on these items were: Nicole Balbas (At-large), Clark Dawson (District III), Roni Gehlke (At-large), Susan Heckly (District II), Kathleen Jennings (At- large), Brett Morris (District IV), Daniel Pellegrini (District V), and Cass Rogers (At-large). The following recommendations are for full funding of the project as proposed unless noted otherwise. FWC Recommendations: 1) Appropriate $6,455.00 to Friends of Orinda Creek for their “San Pablo Creek Restoration Project: Phase I” project. The project will restore a degraded section of San Pablo Creek that runs through the downtown area of Orinda. Partial funding is recommended and will be used for boulders and fill for step pools and native plants for revegetation (recommendation is to reduce native plant funding from $2,000 to $1,455). 2) Purchase a drone and manual telephoto zoom lens for a Canon DSLR camera for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the amount of $998.70 to be used in a study that will Page 3 of 4 assist in the inventory of potential roost sites for bat species throughout the County and provide insight into the ecological importance of specific bridges or locations for bats. 3) Appropriate $1,050.00 to Worth a Dam for their “Beaver Festival XIII: The Case of the Missing Salmon” project. Children will be ‘nature detectives’ and solve a mystery at a beaver pond, learning to identify the habits and tracks of various riparian wildlife. Funds will be used for cards, envelopes, magnifying glasses, exhibit location map festival brochures, artist pastels, children's pastels, printing of signs and quizzes given to the children after they complete the activity. 4) Appropriate $3,390.00 to SPAWNERS for their “Communities for Creeks” project. The project is mid-length feature documentary and accompanying curriculum guide for students grades 7 – 12 that will educate them about watershed ecology, human impact on watersheds, and scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation. Partial funding is recommended for documentary production and post-production items, and curriculum materials; and may not be used for drone operator, rental insurance, sound mix, music licensing, festival entry fees and educational fee. 5) Appropriate $7,669.87 to Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) for their “Zero- Emissions Habitat Restoration Tools” project. The purchase of battery-powered tools will allow CCRCD to reduce air and noise pollution from necessary tool use and increase the EcoStewards Program's capacity to benefit wildlife through habitat restoration. Partial funding is recommended and may be used for battery trimmers, backpack batteries, battery hedge trimmer, batteries and chargers; and may not be used on a shipping container or railroad ties. 6) Appropriate $2,692.70 to Contra Costa Resource Conservation District for their “Improving and developing the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District's Richmond Greenway adopted spot.” project. The project will improve CCRCD's adopted spot on the Richmond Greenway through the implementation of an irrigation system, planting of native vegetation, and putting up an educational sign. Funds will be used for irrigation material and equipment, native plants, cement and signage materials. 7) Appropriate $2,400.00 to Friends of Alhambra Creek for their “Martinez Educational Mural Featuring Local Flora and Fauna” project. The mural will offer a free and accessible outdoor educational opportunity for people of all ages, serve as a destination for local school field trips and as a site for teachers to encourage children to visit and interact with to earn extra credit. Partial funding is recommended for paint, various supplies, protectant coating, prep work and final coating; and may not be used for insurance, design fee, mural painting fee or CCRCD fiscal sponsor fee. 8) Appropriate $9,949.00 to Friends of San Ramon Creek for their “Arundo Removal and Replacement in San Ramon Creek subwatershed” project. The project will remove Arundo from the creek bank and replanting the area with native plants which will provide a healthier, more biodiverse habitat for the fish living in the water and the wildlife that utilize the riparian area. Partial funding is recommended for tools, supplies, rental equipment, and plants; and may not be used for RCD handling cost or the water quality measuring items. 9) Appropriate $6,249.00 to Lindsay Wildlife Experience for their “Native California Aquatic Ecosystems Exhibit and Educational Programs” project. The project will upgrade the Creekwall section of the museum's exhibit floor into an engaging and interactive exhibit which will provide associated programming. Partial funding is recommended and may be used for interpretive signage with infographics, and interactive rail; signage and backdrop for: tiger salamander, western pond turtle, rattlesnake and garter snake enclosures; and may not be used for the environmental wall mural or installation. 10) Appropriate $9,470.00 to Mt. View Sanitary District for their “Moorhen Marsh and the MVSD Wetlands Education Program” project. The project will reduce nutrient pollution through the sustainment of native vegetation and the floating island system within Moorhen Marsh, which hosts the MVSD Wetlands Education Program. Partial funding is recommended for wetlands Page 4 of 4 student booklets (recommendation is to reduce from $7,000 to $3,000), pencils, field trip supplies, native plants for floating islands, worm casting, soil, coir, myselia, and planting equipment; and may not be used on stickers. 11) Further, the FWC also recommended that within a year of grant funding approval, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. Details will be outlined in the grant award packet provided to all successful applicants. [8 ayes/0 noes] Ayes: Balbas, Dawson, Gehlke, Heckly, Jennings, Morris, Pellegrini and Rogers; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None Staff recommends that grant awardees may request modifications to the budget allocations described in their grant applications in writing and those requests may be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Committee or the Department of Conservation and Development Director or his designee. Please contact Maureen Parkes at 925-655-2909 or Abigail Fateman at 925-655-2908 with any questions. Attachments: • Grant application packet for Fish and Wildlife Propagation Funds • Chart summarizing the applications and recommendations Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation A The Regents of the University of California school Native Bees and Host Flowers in Urban Brentwood (a) public education (i) scientific research * CDFW has confirmed this project is eligible to receive funds under FGC Section 13103 (i) East County $5,992.00 $0.00 This is a request for an additional year of funding for a multi-year survey of native bee species and their host flowers in urban Brentwood. This is a continuation of Dr. Frankie's research on native bees in the Brentwood area and their role in providing pollination services. Funds are requested for travel, plants and supplies, an intern to assist in bee curation, a bee taxonomist to identify the bees, student benefits and general, automobile and employment liability. Proposed Project Schedule: June 2022 - May 2023 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding because they wished to recommend funding for other projects this year. B International Bird Rescue non-profit Resolving Negative Human-Wildlife Interactions (AKA Urban Wildlife Conflicts) (b) temporary emergency treatment and care of injured or orphaned wildlife (c) temporary treatment and care of wildlife confiscated by the department as evidence. Countywide $16,068.52 $0.00 This is a request for funds to offset costs for birds admitted from Contra Costa County to IBR's San Francisco Bay-Delta Wildlife Center between April 1 and December 31, 2022. Funds are requested for medication, dietary supplements, vitamins, nutrition, and veterinary supplies. Proposed Project Schedule: April 2022 - December 2022 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding this year because the Committee prefers to fund special projects rather than having organizations depend on grant funding year-to-year to run their programs. *CDFW requires Department approval of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds that are requested under California Fish and Game Code Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), (l) and (m). Page 1 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation C Friends of Orinda Creek non-profit San Pablo Creek Restoration Project: Phase I (e) habitat improvement Central $7,000.00 $6,455.00 This is a request for funds to support the San Pablo Creek Restoration Project - Phase I which will restore a degraded section of San Pablo Creek that runs through the downtown area of Orinda. Funds are requested for boulders and fill for step pools and native plants for revegetation. Proposed Project Schedule: Construction to begin in Summer and Fall of 2022. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. The project will restore aquatic habitat and remove existing barriers to fish movement, revegetation of the project area will enable the development of a more extensive riparian forest and canopy, the project would result in the removal of concrete slabs to prevent potential blockage of the downstream culvert in the event of a severe storm, and would result in the restoration of the historic creek channel to reduce bank failure and sediment deposition. Partial funding is recommended and will be used on boulders and fill for step pools and native plants for revegetation (recommendation is to reduce native plant funding from $2,000 to $1,455). D California Department of Fish and Wildlife government Diurnal Bridge Inventory and Assessment for Bats (i) scientific research (m) other expenditures, approved by the department, for the purpose of protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife * CDFW has confirmed this project is eligible to receive funds under FGC Section 13103 (i) Countywide $998.70 $998.70 This is a request for funds to assess and inventory structures for the potential to support bat species in Contra Costa County. Funds are requested for a drone and manual telephoto zoom lens for Canon DSLR camera. Requested exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement. Proposed Project Schedule: ? The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (i) scientific research and (m) other expenditures, approved by the department, for the purpose of protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife. The study will assist in the inventory of potential roost sites for bat species throughout the County and provide insight into the ecological importance of specific bridges or locations for bats. The drone and telephoto zoom lens will be purchased with Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and gifted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. *CDFW requires Department approval of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds that are requested under California Fish and Game Code Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), (l) and (m). Page 2 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation E Worth a Dam non-profit Beaver Festival XIII: The Case of the Missing Salmon (a) public education Central County $1,050.00 $1,050.00 This is a request for funding a children's educational activity at the 2022 Martinez Beaver Festival. “The Case of the Missing Salmon” will invite children to become ‘nature detectives’ and solve a mystery at a beaver pond, learning to identify the habits and tracks of various riparian wildlife. Funds will be used for cards, envelopes, magnifying glasses, exhibit location map festival brochures, artist pastels, children's pastels and printing of signs and post tests. Event Date: June 25, 2022 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. "The Case of the Missing Salmon" is a fun way to learn about the essential benefits of a beaver pond. The children will learn to identify the tracks of frequent pond wildlife and will gain a better understanding of their lifecycles. F John Muir (East Bay) Chapter of Trout Unlimited non-profit Wildcat Creek Fish Passage and Community Engagement Project (e) habitat improvement West County $2,400.00 $0.00 This is a request for funding assistance on a project to restore steelhead in Wildcat Creek. Funds will be used train a student from a local university as a paid intern to support the volunteer effort of Trouts Unlimited. The intern will assist the Conservation chair and other Board members who may assist on the project. Requested exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement. Proposed Project Schedule: May 2022 - April 2023 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding this year because the intern position was primarily to assist the Conservation chair and other Board members. Page 3 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation G The Watershed Project non-profit Water Quality Monitoring and Capacity Building in Contra Costa County (a) public education (e) habitat improvement Countywide $20,000.00 $0.00 This is a request for funding for The Watershed Project's Contra Costa County creek monitoring program, so they can provide partner groups with increased capacity to take on more local leadership of the program. Funding is requested for calibration standards for all meters in use, YSI meter and sensors, Oakton pH meter, water quaility app to publish data, ID five bug samples at BioAssessment Services, event space rental for year- end celebration, and intern stipend. Requested exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement. Proposed Project Schedule: Start Date ? - May 2023 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding this year because The Watershed Project has received Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds in the past for similar equipment. H SPAWNERS (San Pablo Creek Watershed Neighbors Education & Restoration Society) non-profit Communities for Creeks (a) public education West County $8,549.00 $3,390.00 This is a request for funds to create a mid-length feature documentary and accompanying curriculum guide for students grades 7 - 12 to learn about the best practices for monitoring, protecting, and restoring urban watersheds. Funding is requested for documentary production, documentary post-production and curriculum materials. Proposed Project Schedule: April 2022 - February 2023 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. The project will educate students about watershed ecology, human impact on watersheds, and scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation. Partial funding is recommended and may not be used for drone operator, rental insurance, sound mix, music licensing, festival entry fees and educational fee. Page 4 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation I Contra Costa Resource Conservation District government Zero-Emissions Habitat Restoration Tools (e) habitat improvement Countywide $14,849.87 $7,669.87 This is a request for funds to purchase battery-powered tools and a shipping container for storage in order to increase capacity for habitat restoration and decrease pollution. Funds would be used for battery trimmers, backpack batteries, battery hedge trimmer, batteries, chargers, shipping container and railroad ties. Proposed Project Schedule: May 2022 - August 2022 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. The purchase of battery- powered tools will allow CCRCD to reduce air and noise pollution from necessary tool use and increase the EcoStewards Program's capacity to benefit wildlife through habitat restoration. Partial funding is recommended and may not be used for a shipping container or railroad ties. J Contra Costa Resource Conservation District government Improving and developing the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District's Richmond Greenway adopted spot. (e) habitat improvement West County $2,692.70 $2,692.70 This is a request for funds to improve CCRCD's adopted spot on the Richmond Greenway through the implementation of an irrigation system, planting native vegetation, and putting up an educational sign. A list of items requested for funding is included in the grant application. Proposed Project Schedule: May 2022 - September 2022 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. The project will provide reliable drip irrigation infrastructure which is needed to establish plants that will provide pollinator habitat and increase water infiltration into the soil. The interpretive sign will focus on the importance of pollinators, the value of healthy watersheds, and information about native plant species with a goal of inspiring curiosity about the natural world and inspire action to protect the environment. Page 5 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation K Contra Costa Resource Conservation District/Friends of Alhambra Creek government Martinez Educational Mural Featuring Local Flora and Fauna (a) public education Central County $7,236.00 $2,400.00 This is a request for funds to create an educational mural featuring local native flora and fauna to be located at the underpass of Alhambra Way at California Highway 4 in Martinez. QR codes will be integrated into the mural so viewers can use web- connected mobile devices to view engaging and scientifically accurate information about the represented species and their respective roles in the local ecosystem. Funding is requested for paint, various supplies, insurance, protectant coating, prep work and final coating, design fee, mural painting fee, and CCRCD fiscal sponsor fee. Proposed Project Schedule: January 2022 - October 2022 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. The mural will offer a free and accessible outdoor educational opportunity for people of all ages, serve as a destination for local school field trips and as a site for teachers to encourage children to visit and interact with to earn extra credit. Partial funding is recommended and may not be used for insurance, design fee, mural painting fee or CCRCD fiscal sponsor fee. L Contra Costa Resource Conservation District/Friends of San Ramon Creek government Arundo Removal and Replacement in San Ramon Creek subwatershed (e) habitat improvement Central County $11,409.00 $9,949.00 This is a request for funds to continue Arundo removal efforts. Funding is for equipment to access steep slopes, and for plants to restore sites where Arundo has been removed. A list of items requested for funding is included in the grant application. Proposed Project Schedule: April 2022 - December 2022 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. Removing Arundo from the creek bank and replanting the area with native plants provides a healthier, more biodiverse habitat for the fish living in the water and the wildlife that utilize the riparian area. Partial funding is recommended and may not be used for the RCD handling cost or the water quaility measuring items. Page 6 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation M Regional Parks Foundation non-profit Black Rail Rescue Rangers Habitat Enhancement Project (e) habitat improvement West County $9,000.00 $0.00 This is a request for funds for a project that will improve and expand habitat for the California Black Rail, a state threatened species, at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. Funds would be used to help cover the expense of working with Civicorps to remove debris and maintain the tidal areas. Proposed Project Schedule: Following Spring breeding/nesting season 2022- January 2023 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding this year because they did not wish to fund the Civicorps contract. N Lindsay Wildlife Experience non-profit Native California Aquatic Ecosystems Exhibit and Educational Programs (a) public education Central County $12,849.00 $6,249.00 This is a request for funds to upgrade the aquatic section of LWE's exhibit floor and to create associated educational programming. The exhibit upgrade will focus on protecting California aquatic ecosystems and the native animals that call them home. Funds would be used for interpretive signage with infographics, and interactive rail; signage and backdrop for: tiger salamander, western pond turtle, rattlesnake and garter snake enclosures; an environmental wall mural; and installation. Proposed Project Schedule: May 2022- January 2023 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. The project will upgrade the Creekwall section of the museum's exhibit floor into an engaging and interactive exhibit which will provide associated programming. Partial funding is recommended and may not be used for the environmental wall mural or installation. Page 7 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of Request FWC Rationale for Recommendation O Marine Science Institute non-profit Marine Science Institute Delta Discovery Voyage Program (a) public education Central County 48% East County 52% $10,000.00 $0.00 This is a request to fund various expenses of MSI's Delta wildlife and water education programs for 5th grade Contra Costa County students. Funds would be used for expendable supplies, MSI instructors' overnight stays in Antioch motel, fuel for ship/MSI vehicles, and Antioch Marina fee. Proposed Project Schedule: January 2023- December 2023 Although a valuable project, due to the low balance of Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds and low incoming revenue in the past two years, the Committee does not recommend funding this year because they prefer to fund special projects rather than having organizations depend on grant funding year-to-year to run their programs. P Mt. View Sanitary District government Moorhen Marsh and the MVSD Wetlands Education Program (a) public education (e) habitat improvement Central County $15,779.00 $9,470.00 This is a request for funding assistance for the management of plant and wildlife in Moorhen Marsh and its wetlands educational program serving Contra Costa County students. Funds would be used for: wetlands student booklets, pencils, stickers, field trip supplies, native plants for floating islands, worm casting, soil, coir, myselia, and planting equipment. Proposed Project Schedule: July 2022 - May 2023 The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education and (e) habitat improvement. The project will reduce nutrient pollution through the sustainment of native vegetation and the floating island system within Moorhen Marsh, which hosts the MVSD Wetlands Education Program. Partial funding is recommended with two changes: 1) reduce the amount of grant funding for the Wetlands Student Booklets from $7,000 to $3,000, and 2) grant funds may not be used on stickers. Page 8 of 9 4/6/2022 Grant Applications and Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendations 2022 Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Total $145,873.79 $50,324.27 $146,925.30 Remainder $1,051.51 $96,601.03 Subtotals By Region Requested Funding Amount Percentage of Total Amount Requested Recommended Funding Amount Percentage of Total Amount Recommended for Approval East $11,192.00 7.67%$0.00 0.00% West $13,641.70 9.35%$6,082.70 12.09% Central $70,121.70 48.07%$36,571.70 72.67% Countywide $50,918.39 34.91%$7,669.87 15.24% TOTAL $145,873.79 100.00%$50,324.27 100.00% Total Available Funds as of January 12, 2022 Page 9 of 9 4/6/2022 Contra Costa County October 4, 2021 Dear Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Grant Applicants: The Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee is pleased to announce that completed funding applications are now being accepted for consideration for the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund (Fund). All application materials and guidelines are attached. Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 5, 2022 (a postmark of January 5, 2022, does not satisfy the submission deadline). Proposals may be emailed or mailed. Any applications that are received after the due date or without a signature will not be considered. Staff will acknowledge receipt of each grant application. If you do not receive a confirmation of receipt contact Maureen Parkes at 925-655-2909 prior to the deadline. The recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Committee will be forwarded to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, which maintains final decision-making authority for expenditures from the Fund. The Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund is entirely supported by fine revenues resulting from violations of the Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in Contra Costa County (County). Projects awarded from the Fund must benefit the fish and wildlife resources of the County and must meet the requirements of Section 13103 of the Fish and Game Code (attached). If your project is eligible under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), or (m) please send a copy of your draft proposal to Maureen Parkes at maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us by November 4, 2021. Staff will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the project’s eligibility to receive funds. See Instructions for more details. All applications that satisfy the requirements listed in the funding application instructions will be considered. The Fish and Wildlife Committee strongly encourages applications related to:  improving habitat  scientific research  public education  threatened and endangered species  resolving human/wildlife interaction issues In addition to the above areas of interest, the Fish and Wildlife Committee wishes to fund one or more projects that increase collaboration with law enforcement agencies and community cultural organizations on enforcement issues and education focusing on communities that may be unaware of local fish and game laws. Projects that provide multilingual signage and educational materials are encouraged. The Fish and Wildlife Committee considers grant awards for prospective expenditures from non-profit organizations, schools, and government agencies. The Committee generally does not recommend funding for operating costs and overhead, such as staff salaries, benefits, or utilities. The Committee generally gives preference to funding material expenses (e.g. purchase of equipment and materials). Organizations, schools, and government agencies that have received previous Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grants should have a positive track record of completing projects and submitting final reports in an efficient, timely and clear manner. John Kopchik Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Jason Crapo Deputy Director Maureen Toms Deputy Director Amalia Cunningham Assistant Deputy Director Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone:1-855-323-2626 Page 2 The Committee expects to recommend awards to several applicants. However, it is possible that a particularly excellent proposal will be recommended to receive a large portion of the total available funds. During the 2021 grant cycle a total of $60,830.71 was awarded to seven projects. The awards ranged from $4,973.00 to $16,000.00. Available funds vary from year to year and the Fish and Wildlife Committee cannot commit to multi-year or recurring funding. The Board of Supervisors will make the final decision on the grant awards and successful applicants may anticipate receiving notification by May 2022. Project expenditures eligible for reimbursement must be made subsequent to Board of Supervisors approval of grant funding. The grant award funds will be disbursed on a cost reimbursement basis.* (See below for exceptions.) Within a year of grant funding approval, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. Any expenses not listed on the original grant application should be requested ahead of time. Unapproved expenses may not be reimbursable. Fish and Wildlife Propagation fund grants will be disbursed after receipt and approval of the final project report. Details will be outlined in the grant award letter that is sent to all successful applicants. *Exception For Non-Profit Organizations That Can Demonstrate Financial Hardship: Private, non-profit entities that can demonstrate that providing Fish and Wildlife Propagation grant funding on a cost reimbursement basis will create a financial hardship and be detrimental to the operation of the program will be eligible to receive up to ½ of the grant amount after the grant is awarded. The remaining amount of the grant will be disbursed after the entity has submitted information including invoices and receipts documenting how the initial disbursement was spent. Within a year of initial notification of the grant funding award (May 2023), or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, the entity will be required to submit information including invoices and receipts documenting how the second disbursement was spent, and provide a final project report documenting the results of the project. *Exception For Small Projects Under $1,000: Grant funding may be disbursed to private, non-profit entities prior to the beginning of the project if the award is under $1,000 and the entity has provided documentation that the project could only be initiated with advance funding. Within a year of grant funding, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. The Committee appreciates your interest in this opportunity to improve the fish and wildlife resources in Contra Costa County. Should you have any questions about the Fish and Wildlife Committee or this funding program, please contact me at 925-655-2909 or maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us. Sincerely, Maureen Parkes Fish and Wildlife Committee Staff   Page 1 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS What Must Be Included in Your Proposal (not to exceed 4 pages): 1) Signed Application Cover Page – See attached. (PDFs and e-signatures are acceptable) 2) Description of the project for which funding is requested. Please include an explanation of:  how this project will benefit the fish and wildlife of Contra Costa County  how this project meets the requirements of Section 13103 of the Fish & Game Code (attached) which defines the eligibility requirements for projects requesting funding from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund. Indicate which letter(s) of the Section 13103 is/are satisfied. NEW REQUIREMENT: If your proposal is eligible under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i)*, or (m), a copy of your draft proposal must be sent to the attention of Maureen Parkes at maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us or at the address listed on Page 2 and received by November 4, 2021. Staff will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the project’s eligibility to receive funds. *If your project is eligible under Section 13103 (i), and a scientific collection permit is required and issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, this will indicate that the project is eligible to receive Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds. Please send the scientific collection permit along with your grant application by the January 5, 2022 - 5:00 P.M. grant submission deadline. Scientific collection permits are not included in the grant application page limit. The Fish and Wildlife Committee wishes to be acknowledged for its financial support of the project. FWC or staff review may be required prior to printing any written materials that receive funding. Please refer to the guidelines listed below:  Grant recipients agree to obtain advance written approval from the FWC of any communication/written material that may reasonably be understood to represent the views of the FWC and to provide the FWC with reasonable opportunity to review, comment and approve the communication/written material. Grant recipients may use the following standard language in making attributions for funding by the FWC:  Attribution for full Grant funding: “This (research, publication, project, web site, report, etc.) was funded by the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee.”  Attribution for partial Grant funding: “This (research, publication, project, web site, report, etc.) is funded in part by the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee.” 3) Project schedule - The project must be completed within a year from the date you receive notification of funding (by May 2023). 4) Project budget (itemized). The Fish and Wildlife Committee generally does not recommend funding for operating costs and overhead. Examples for these include staff salaries, health insurance, and operation costs such as electricity to run an office. If an hourly rate is listed, overhead costs need to be itemized separately. The Committee generally gives preferences to funding material expenses (e.g. purchase of equipment and materials). 5) Annual budget for the applying organization (not itemized). 6) Statement describing the applying organization, listing the Board of Directors and officers of the organization, and listing all affiliated organizations. 7) Statement describing the qualifications of the sponsoring organization and participating individuals for completing the project. 8) List of individuals responsible for performing project and of individuals responsible for overseeing project. 9) Statement describing the status of permit approvals necessary to perform project (if applicable). 10) Request for an exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement due to financial hardship or an exception for a small project under $1,000. (This request does not count toward your page limit and is only required if requesting an exception.) Page 2 of 2 Format:  Your proposal packet, including cover sheet and any attachments must not exceed four single-sided pages or two double-sided pages, 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Electronic submittals are preferred. Please use 11 point font or larger and ½ inch margins or larger on your pages. If you submit more than 3 pages plus required cover sheet, your proposal may be disqualified without review.  NEW REQUIREMENT: If your project is eligible under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), or (m) a copy of your draft proposal must be sent to the attention of Maureen Parkes at maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us and received by November 4, 2021. (See exception for Section 13103 (i) above.) Do not attach an additional cover letter, brochures, posters, publications, CDs, DVDs, large maps or yellow-sticky paper (e.g. Post- ItTM).  Your complete application packet including signature must arrive by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 5, 2022 (Pacific Standard Time) to be considered for funding. (Please note: A postmark of January 5, 2022 does not satisfy the submission deadline. If submitted after the deadline, your proposal will be disqualified).* Your complete application should be: Emailed: maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us or Mailed or Hand Delivered**: Contra County Fish & Wildlife Committee c/o Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 Attn: Maureen Parkes *Staff will acknowledge receipt of each grant application. If you do not receive an email confirmation of receipt, contact Maureen Parkes prior to the deadline by calling 925-655-2909. **Due to new (and changing) operating procedures related to COVID-19 safety measures, you need to contact Maureen by email or telephone at 925-655-2909 to coordinate hand delivery of your application to ensure your application is received by the submission deadline. Final Checklist Before You Submit Your Proposal: Please note that your proposal will not be considered if you provide more materials than required below:  Signed Cover page (your proposal will be disqualified if it does not have your original signature on the cover page).  3 pages or less on your project description (any extra attachments such as a map and an organization budget will be counted as one of the three page limit.)  If your project qualifies under Section 13013 (i) and you have been issued a scientific collection permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife please include it. (This is not a part of the page limit listed above.)  Request for an exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement due to financial hardship or an exception for a small project under $1,000. (This is not a part of the page limit listed above and is only required if requesting an exception). If you have questions regarding the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grant process, please contact Maureen Parkes: maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us / (925) 655-2909. (a) Public education relating to the scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation, consisting of supervised formal instruction carried out pursuant to a planned curriculum and aids to education such as literature, audio and video recordings, training models, and nature study facilities. (b) Temporary emergency treatment and care of injured or orphaned wildlife. (c) Temporary treatment and care of wildlife confiscated by the department as evidence. (d) Breeding, raising, purchasing, or releasing fish or wildlife which are to be released upon approval of the department pursuant to Sections 6400 and 6401 onto land or into waters of local, state, or federal agencies or onto land or into waters open to the public. (e) Improvement of fish and wildlife habitat, including, but not limited to, construction of fish screens, weirs, and ladders; drainage or other watershed improvements; gravel and rock removal or placement; construction of irrigation and water distribution systems; earthwork and grading; fencing; planting trees and other vegetation management; and removal of barriers to the migration of fish and wildlife. (f) Construction, maintenance, and operation of public hatchery facilities. (g) Purchase and maintain materials, supplies, or equipment for either the department's ownership and use or the department's use in the normal performance of the department's responsibilities. (h) Predator control actions for the benefit of fish or wildlife following certification in writing by the department that the proposed actions will significantly benefit a particular wildlife species. (i) Scientific fish and wildlife research conducted by institutions of higher learning, qualified researchers, or governmental agencies, if approved by the department. (j) Reasonable administrative costs, excluding the costs of audits required by Section 13104, for secretarial service, travel, and postage by the county fish and wildlife commission when authorized by the county board of supervisors. For purposes of this subdivision, "reasonable cost" means an amount which does not exceed 3 percent of the average amount received by the fund during the previous three-year period, or three thousand dollars ($3,000) annually, whichever is greater, excluding any funds carried over from a previous fiscal year. (k) Contributions to a secret witness program for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of this code and regulations adopted pursuant to this code. (l) Costs incurred by the district attorney or city attorney in investigating and prosecuting civil and criminal actions for violations of this code, as approved by the department. (m) Other expenditures, approved by the department, for the purpose of protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife. California Fish and Game Code Section 711.2. (a) "For purposes of this code, unless the context otherwise requires, "wildlife" means and includes all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability ..." California Fish and Game Code Section 13103. Expenditures from the fish and wildlife propagation fund of any county may be made only for the following purposes: * *A scientific collection permit, if required and issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, indicates that the project is eligible to receive Fish and Wildlife Propagation funds. * Office Use Only: Contra Costa County 2022 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Application Cover Page Project title: Organization/Individual applying: (Organization type: please check one – government, non-profit, school, other (explain) Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Name and title of contact person: One sentence summary of proposal: Requested grant: Proposal prepared by (name & title): Signature (Typing your name does not count as a signature. If this section is empty, your proposal will not be considered): ________________________________________________ Signed on _______________ RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE the Small Business Enterprise, Outreach, and Local Bid Preference Programs Report, reflecting departmental program data for the period July 1 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Informational report only. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County values the contributions of small business and developed programs to assist in soliciting and awarding contracts to the SBE community. The Board of Supervisors adopted these programs to enable small and local businesses to compete for a share of the County's purchasing transactions. The Board of Supervisors has set a goal of awarding at least 50% of eligible product and service dollars to small businesses. The Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program applies to: (1) County-funded construction contracts of $100,000 or less; (2) purchasing transactions of $100,000 or less; and (3) professional/personal service contracts of $100,000 or less. The objective of the program is to award at least 50% or more of the total eligible dollar base amounts to SBEs. A Small Business Enterprise, as defined by the California Government Code, Section 14837, Chapter 3.5 must be: Independently owned and operated business, which is not dominant in its field of operation; The principal office of which is located in California, the officers of which are domiciled in California, and which together with affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees; Have average annual gross receipts of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) or less over the previous three tax years, or a manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Shehorn, 925-957-2495 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: CAO (Enea), Purchasing Svcs Mgr C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Small Business Enterprise, Outreach, and Local Program Report for the Period July through December 2021 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Reporting Requirements It is the responsibility of each County department to track and compile the data for purchasing activities in order to provide a countywide report to the Board of Supervisors. The Internal Operations Committee has responsibility for evaluating the semi-annual reports and making recommendations to the Board on program policies and reporting. The Board receives reports in six-month increments, with the last report submitted to the Board for the period ending June 2021. Attachment A constitutes the report due for the period of July 1 – December 31, 2021. Summary Findings The following table summarizes the attached department activity on a countywide basis. July – December 2021 ACTIVITY TYPE: Total # of ALL Contracts Total # of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Total Dollar Value of ALL Contracts Total Dollar Value of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Professional/Personal Services 334 149 44.6%$17,800,759 $8,255,123 46.4% Purchasing Transactions 1021 313 30.7%21,848,734 $4,629,503 21.2% Construction Contracts 3 3 100%$150,000 $150,000 100% While the County did not achieve the 50% goal, this information shows the County directed more than $12.8 million in qualifying transactions to SBE firms during the six-month reporting period, achieving a 46.4% award rate for professional/personal services transactions and a 21.2% award rate for purchasing transactions. There were 3 construction contracts reported in this period. It is worth noting that the SBE participation goals of surrounding agencies are typically in the 20-25% range. By that measure, Contra Costa County’s reported activity is above that threshold for professional/personal services, and within the range for purchasing transactions. The following departments are to be commended for achieving 50% or more program compliance this reporting period: Professional/Personal Services: Animal Services, Clerk of the Board, Fire Protection District, and Public Works Purchases: Agriculture, Clerk of the Board, Communications Media, County Counsel, and Treasurer – Tax Collector Of particular note, Clerk of the Board, and the Fire Protection District are to be commended for achieving a 100% award rate for qualifying professional services contracts. Clerk of the Board is also commended for achieving a 100% award rate for qualifying purchasing transactions. Public Works is commended for achieving a 100% award rate for construction contracts. Department/Activity Total # of ALL Contracts Total # of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Total Dollar Value of ALL Contracts Total Dollar Value of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Professional/Personal Svcs Animal Services 23 18 78.3%$745,260 $525,152 70.5% Clerk of the Board 2 2 100.0%$131,080 $131,080 100.0% Fire Protection District 1 1 100.0%$44,000 $44,000 100.0% Public Works 7 3 42.9%$149,300 $129,700 86.9% Purchasing Transactions Agriculture 4 2 50.0%$37,449 $26,449 70.6% Clerk of the Board 2 2 100.0%$6,160 $6,160 100.0% Communications Media 4 2 50.0%$53,443 $32,817 61.4% County Counsel 5 2 40.0%$110,908 $69,206 62.4% Treasurer-Tax Collector 15 3 20.0%$127,036 $63,543 50.0% Construction Contracts Public Works 3 3 100.0%$150,000 $150,000 100.0% E-Outreach Report In order to encourage the use of small, local, and disadvantaged businesses, the County's E-Outreach Program requires bids and Request for Proposals greater than $10,000 to be solicited online. For this period, there were 34 bids totaling $20,072,078 that fell within the parameters of the program. The data specific to electronic solicitations is developed and provided by the Purchasing Division of the Public Works Department, and reflects outreach to small, women-owned, minority-owned, local, disabled veteran-owned, and disadvantaged business enterprises. During this reporting period, 34 bids were conducted using the BidSync e-outreach site. Notifications were sent to 267,328 businesses, of which 31.6% are considered small, local, or disadvantaged business enterprises. E-Outreach July 1, 2021 – December 31, 2021 Number of Solicitations 34 Total Notifications 267,328 Dollar Value $20,072,078 BUSINESS CATEGORY NotificationsPercentage of Total MBE - Minority Business Enterprise 14,683 5.5% WBE - Women Business Enterprise 13,083 4.9% SBE - Small Business Enterprise 42,256 16.9% LBE - Local Business Enterprise 1,787 0.6% DVBE - Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise 329 0.1% DBE – Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 9,502 3.6% Total 86,640 31.6% Local Business Preference For opportunities exceeding $25,000, the Local Business Preference Program allows for local businesses to submit a new offer if within 5% of the lowest bidder. There were no instances of the Bid Preference utilized in this reporting period. Dollar Value Awarded to Local and Bay Area Businesses The dollar value of Purchase Orders issued for the period was $21,848,734. The dollar value awarded to Contra Costa County businesses was 13.1% or $2.8 million. The value awarded to other Bay Area businesses was 15.1% or $3.3 million. This represents Contra Costa County’s contribution to the local economy. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County $2,863,261 13.1% Other Bay Area Counties $3,307,198 15.1% Other $15,678,275 71.8% Total $21,848,734 100.0% Conclusion The County has demonstrated continued commitment to achieving the 50% goal for participation by SBE firms in contract and purchasing activities. While the data for some departments is below this threshold, departments are showing some interest in increasing the percentage of awarded contracts. Instruction is being provided on the search features of the purchasing system, to assist in identifying businesses in the small, local, women, minority, veteran and disadvantaged business categories. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, to pay up to $135,432 to Agiliti Health, Inc. for the rental of medical devices and equipment provided to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period of October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this action would result in a one-time expenditure not to exceed $135,432 and will be funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) revenues. BACKGROUND: CCRMC has rented hospital beds, infusion pumps, and other medical equipment and devices from Agiliti Health, Inc. since 2007. They have provided competitive pricing through the Vizient Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) Contracts. Agiliti Health Inc. has demonstrated their reliability for providing fast, on-site medical equipment deliveries, which has minimized disruptions to the delivery of patient care, leading to better clinical outcomes for our patients. As a direct result of treating COVID patients, the hospital experienced higher acuity levels and an increased length of stay. The Sterile Processing Department (SPD) did not anticipate the higher demand for equipment and specialty bed rentals and had exhausted their budget. To avoid this situation from occurring again, SPD has a resource in place that is accountable for monitoring the budget to ensure the department stays on target or proactively provides the business case when additional funding is required. Due to the aforementioned increased number of patients and budget exhaustion, the vendor was not paid by CCRMC for supplies provided in good faith for the period of October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Therefore, CCRMC has determined that Agiliti Health, Inc. is entitled to payment for the value of the supplies provided under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. The theory provides that where a vendor has been asked to provide products or services without a valid purchase order, and the vendor does so to the benefit of the recipient, the vendor is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those products or services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this request is not approved, CCRMC will be unable to pay Agiliti Health, Inc. for services provided in good faith, and clinicians will no longer be able to place physician orders for equipment essential to the patient’s treatment plan, placing the patient’s health and safety at risk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ronny Leffel, 925-550-2299 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Payment for Rental Equipment Provided by Agiliti Health, Inc. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #72-181 with the University of New England, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction in the County’s Health Services Department’s Public Health Division to nutrition program intern students, for the period from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide University of New England nutrition program intern students the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. Under Contract #72-181, the contractor will provide supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services, for the period from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, nutrition program students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience in the County’s Public Health Division. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ori Tzvieli, M.D., 925-608-5267 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #72-181 with University of New England RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute an amendment to extend a tolling agreement with Discovery Builders, Inc., West Coast Home Builders, Inc., and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to toll the limitations period for potential litigation related to fire protection facilities fees through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2020-27, an ordinance that establishes fire protection facilities fees for that portion of the county that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The ordinance authorizes the County to impose the fees and authorizes the Fire District to collect, retain, and expend the fees. Fee amounts are specified in the ordinance and must be paid before a building permit is issued for new residential or commercial construction. At the same meeting, the Board also approved a fee administration agreement between the County and the Fire District that establishes the terms and conditions for the Fire District to collect, retain, and expend the fees. Under the fee administration agreement, the Fire District is required to indemnify the County against all lawsuits related to the fees and the fee ordinance, including any challenge to the validity of the fees, any challenge to the Fire District’s use of the fees, and any challenge related to compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The Fire District, Discovery Builders, Inc., and West Coast Home Builders, Inc., are currently in a dispute over the fee amounts in the ordinance. These parties are engaged in discussions to try to resolve their differences without incurring the cost and expense of litigation. At the request of the parties, the County previously entered into a tolling agreement to toll (suspend) the statutory limitations period for filing a lawsuit related to fire protection facilities fees from February 24, 2021, through April 30, 2021. The parties and the County subsequently agreed to amend the tolling agreement to extend the tolling period through April 30, 2022. The parties have since requested that the County agree to amend the tolling agreement again to extend the tolling period through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The tolling agreement between the County and the parties would not be extended and would terminate after April 30, 2022. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2022 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Kopchik 925 655-2780 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2022 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Antonia Welty, Deputy cc: C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2022 Contra Costa County Subject:Tolling Agreement with Discovery Builders, Inc. West Coast Builders, Inc. and the East CC Fire Protection District ATTACHMENTS Tolling Agreement 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO TOLLING AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to Tolling Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is entered into by and between Discovery Builders, Inc. (“Discovery”) and West Coast Home Builders, Inc. (“WCHB”), on the one hand, and the County of Contra Costa and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (collectively “County”), and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Board of Directors of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (collectively “Fire District”), on the other hand. Discovery, WCHB, County and Fire District will sometimes be collectively referred to herein as “Parties” and individually as “Party.” WHEREAS, on February 24 and 25, 2021, the Parties entered into a Tolling Agreement (“Tolling Agreement”) relating to claims arising from actions taken by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors during its November 3, 2020 meeting, wherein the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing, concurred with findings in a Fire District Notice of Findings Report, and adopted Ordinance No. 2020-27, an ordinance that establishes fire facility development impact fees for that portion of the County that is located within the boundaries of the Fire District, and authorizes the County to impose the fees and the Fire District to collect, retain, and expend the fees. WHEREAS, on or about April 30, 2021 to May 4, 2021, the Parties entered into an Amendment to Tolling Agreement (“First Amendment”) wherein the Parties amended Paragraph 1 of the Tolling Agreement to change the Tolling Period therein to read “from February 24, 2021 through and including April 30, 2022. WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021 and on September 16, 2021, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (“Con Fire”) and the Fire District, respectively, adopted substantially similar resolutions (Con Fire Resolution No. 2021/8 [as amended by Con Fire Resolution No. 2022/3] and Fire District Resolution No. 2021-32) to annex the Fire District to Con Fire, dissolve the Fire District and name Con Fire as successor agency pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code Section 56000, et seq. Pursuant to Con Fire Resolution No. 2021/8, as amended by Resolution No. 2022/3, Con Fire confirmed that certain categories of contracts, including the Tolling Agreement and all amendments thereto, entered into by the Fire District would, upon annexation, be transferred to Con Fire as the successor to the Fire District. WHEREAS, on March 9, 2022, the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. 21-11 approving the annexation of the Fire District to Con Fire and the dissolution of the Fire District, effective June 30, 2022. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to confirm that, since the Tolling Period contained in this Tolling Agreement extends beyond the June 30, 2022 date on which the Fire District is dissolved and on which Con Fire becomes the Fire District’s successor, Con Fire will succeed to and become bound by the obligations of the Fire District in this Tolling Agreement. WHEREAS, the Tolling Agreement and First Amendment were entered into in recognition that it would be productive for some or all of the Parties to engage in discussions to 2 try to resolve their differences without having to simultaneously incur the cost and expense of litigation while these discussions occurred. WHEREAS, the Parties have continued to make progress in their discussions and believe that they may be able to avoid litigation by amending the Tolling Agreement to extend the Tolling Period. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Second Amendment to toll the applicable statutes of limitations and other time-related rules, doctrines, claims or defenses identified in the Tolling Agreement for an additional period of time. NOW, THEREFORE, to minimize the cost and expense of potentially avoidable litigation, and in consideration of the mutual promises, representations, terms and conditions contained herein, and of other good and valuable consideration, the reasonableness and sufficiency of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the Parties agree as follows: 1. The Parties hereby amend Paragraph 1 of the Tolling Agreement to change the Tolling Period therein to hereinafter read: “from February 24, 2021 through and including December 31, 2022 (“Tolling Period”).” 2. The Parties hereby add a new paragraph 9 to the Tolling Agreement that states as follows: “The Parties acknowledge that the Fire District is dissolving on June 30, 2022 and that the Tolling Period extends beyond that date. The Parties hereby confirm their understanding that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (“Con Fire”) will become the successor agency of the Fire District as of that date and, in that capacity, Con Fire will succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Fire District, including the Fire District’s agreement herein to the Tolling Period set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Tolling Agreement.” 3. All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Tolling Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, shall remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. Dated: April ___, 2022 DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC. By: Name: Title: 3 Dated: April ___, 2022 WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC. By: Name: Title: Dated: April ___, 2022 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By: Name: Title: Dated: April ___, 2022 EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: Name: Brian Helmick Title: Fire Chief APPROVED AS TO FORM Dated: April ___, 2022 SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP By: Paul P. “Skip” Spaulding, III Attorneys for DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC. and WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC. 4 Dated: April ___, 2022 MARY ANN MCNETT MASON, COUNTY COUNSEL By: Thomas L. Geiger, Assistant County Counsel Attorneys for COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Dated: April ___, 2022 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP By: Shayna M. van Hoften Attorneys for EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9195947